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

[Stacyhs]

Ah penny drops. I can now see why you don't get it.



.

You're right. If that's your logic, then I don't get it.

I wonder why all murderers don't intentionally leave evidence of themselves and the person they're trying to 'cover' for and point it out to the police.

 

[Numbers]

I knew someone who worked in a care home and the television was on all day. What they liked to watch were game shows like Bargain Hunt, Homes Under the Hammer, or Pointless, perhaps a film or The Graham Norton Show. No-one was interested in the news or politics. I promise you.

Vixen, your anecdotal account from a care home is not a citation to a reference that supports your case. Prisons are not care homes - the term "care home" is a UK term for what in the US would be called a "long-term care facility", "assisted living facility", or "nursing home"; according to a dictionary definition:

a place where someone who is old or ill lives when they cannot live at home any more

Source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/care-home

Prisoners and elderly or ill persons may not have the same TV-watching habits. Your post only demonstrates your inability or unwillingness to provide objective evidence to support your biased statement.

 

[Stacyhs]

Of course you do.

And she won't hesitate to tell you what everyone associated with the case thinks and knows.

 

[SpitfireIX]

It is well-known that housedust is full of DNA fragments. That is why the courts' legal standard is that of a minimum 10 or 11 allleles* is required for it to be entered into evidence. That is just as well because otherwise AK's DNA fragments on Mez' underwear would incriminate her. Note that one of her counsel walked off the case, shortly after the DNA was revealed. I wonder what made him walk?

*Sollecito's DNA was the full load of alleles.

Here is the summary from a blog post by @Chris_Halkides from Monday, September 27, 2010; I believe he's discussed this information here in more detail several times in the past:

Conclusions​

The way that the bra clasp was handled and the lack of a clear chain of custody cast doubt on this piece of evidence. The lack of blood on the knife calls into grave question whether the DNA got there before or after the police took it into evidence, as argued in the Johnson/Hampikian open letter. Secondary transfer is a likely means for Raffaele’s DNA being in the bra clasp, and contamination, either in the lab or during collection, is a likely means for Meredith’s DNA being found on the knife. The mixed DNA samples are virtually meaningless. The single most troubling aspect of the DNA evidence is the lack of full disclosure of the electronic data files and other documentation relating to the DNA forensics. The prosecution is acting as if it had something to hide.​

Go ahead, Vixen. Tell me how I had to seek out an expert because I can't think for myself.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen, I'm still waiting for you to quote and cite Altieri or anyone claiming they saw someone making a "cut throat" gesture.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Goes to show how cunning AK was and is.

So cunning that she didn't let Meredith's phone ring as many times as you think she should have.

Mignini descrined her as 'narcissistic, transgressive and manipulative', a fine actor and a 'talented liar'.

And he had zero evidence for any of this. It just fit the theory of the crime he'd developed based on his imagined Sherlock Holmes-like powers of deduction.

He is probably not far wrong to link the crime to Hallowe'en, given RS' penchant for extreme experiences, vampire-slaying manga and collection of knives. . .

Yes, extremely suspicious.

Knox, someone who enjoys shocking people. Boiling with rage at the perception Mez had stolen her job, snubbed her at Hallowe'en, had the handsome skiing Italian downstairs, popular, in demand, whilst AK was stuck with the swotty incel.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Stacyhs]

It is well-known that housedust is full of DNA fragments. That is why the courts' legal standard is that of a minimum 10 or 11 allleles* is required for it to be entered into evidence. That is just as well because otherwise AK's DNA fragments on Mez' underwear would incriminate her.

That old story yet again? The PGP's oft cited Prof. Peter Balding's program eliminated Knox as a donor of any DNA on Kercher's bra.

Software says Knox's DNA not on crime scene bra clasp​

By Colin Barras
1 July 2013

Using the software on a sample from a bra clasp found near Kercher’s body suggests it is very unlikely that the item carries Knox’s DNA.

(For clarification, in the US 'underwear' is used almost exclusively for "panties/knickers", not bras.)

Note that one of her counsel walked off the case, shortly after the DNA was revealed. I wonder what made him walk?

You're referring to Prof. Vinci who did not 'walk off the case'. That is a PGP lie. Prof. Vinci was a consultant for the Sollecito defense for seven years through the Nencini trial. He last testified on May 29, 2014.
I wonder what makes you repeat such easily disproven rubbish?

*Sollecito's DNA was the full load of alleles.

It was still a Low Copy Number sample.

 

[Stacyhs]

So cunning that she didn't let Meredith's phone ring as many times as you think she should have.


And he had zero evidence for any of this. It just fit the theory of the crime he'd developed based on his imagined Sherlock Holmes-like powers of deduction.


Yes, extremely suspicious.


Assumes facts not in evidence.

What Vixen has either forgotten (or, more likely, chooses to ignore) is that phone logs do not record how long a phone rings before being picked up or going to voicemail. It only records the time starting when the call is answered by a person, a message such as "not in service", or voicemail.

 

[SpitfireIX]

That one didn't. If you came home to find the door swinging open and a person who also lived there was not around who usually was, would you not give them a ring? And shouldn't that phone call ring slightly longer than three seconds before hanging up...?

See @Stacyhs's explanation of what you're missing here.

 

[SpitfireIX]

AK left Geude's faeces there because she knew it was his and not hers. The pair made a point of dragging Napoleoni back out of her car, as she was leaving the cottage, to have a look at it. What they didn't realise is that there is too much bacteria in faeces for it to be particularly useful for DNA recovery. But the forensic police did manage to link it to Guede, who never denied it, anyway.

So why did she then implicate Patrick to cover for Rudy?

Unfortunately, there was no forensic sign of RG in Filomena's room but there WAS a damning mix of DNA of AK and Mez. This was via blood which scientists could identify by the high RFU's, as only blood reacts in that way.

And, as has been explained to you repeatedly, and you repeatedly ignore, blood with mixed DNA does not mean mixed blood. Amanda's DNA could have gotten on the sink from brushing her teeth, and then Rudy could have dripped Meredith's blood on the sink in the same spot. What is so hard for you to grasp about this? And why didn't Amanda and Raffaele just clean it up??

 

[SpitfireIX]

Even AK in the sample preface of her book (on Amazon) sneers that they were all paupers and 'jealous' of her because she was 'famous', her words. AK certainly wasn't watching television with the flea-ridden hoi-polloi. The idea is hilarious.

Argument from personal incredulity, as usual. Even assuming that she didn't have a TV in her cell (and if the guards decided to keep her isolated from the general population, they might have given her one), you just have to pretend that she never went out into the common area. Further, you're also assuming that she didn't just sit at a table by herself, or with her cellmate (I know at one point she was paired with another American who was incarcerated on drug charges, but I'm not sure when that happened) and watch TV. Finally, you're assuming that this jealousy manifested itself immediately. It very likely grew over time, especially as the police leaked all the lies about her to the media, and as the first trial progressed.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Oh please. A young woman has been brutally murdered and you reckon the medic called in to check signs of life, 'just in case', is going to play charades on his or her way out to the sundry people gathered outside.

MEDIC: <fx indicates a square with his hands>

BYSTANDERS (all together) A FILM!

MEDIC: <fx holds up four fingers followed by index finger>

ALL: Five words. First word.

MEDIC: <fx tugs ear>

ALL: Sounds like...!

MEDIC: <fx points two fingers to his temple>

BYSTANDER: Gun shot!

MEDIC: <fx waves it away>

OTHER BYSTANDER: Gun fight!

ALTIERI (for it is he!) : Gunfight at OK Corral!

I mean, Altieri is so perceptive and good at this stuff.

Explain to us again how you have such a "logical, mathematical, and objective mindset," Vixen. I stated several times that the medic could have been indicating the location of the wound to a police officer or another medic, not to the bystanders. But, as usual, you just can't pass up an opportunity to dishonestly attempt to twist someone else's argument in an attempt to gain a rhetorical advantage.

Seriously though, AK knew how Mez died because she was there!

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Numbers]

Goes to show how cunning AK was and is. Mignini descrined her as 'narcissistic, transgressive and manipulative', a fine actor and a 'talented liar'.
.......

This statement from or attributed to Mignini is interesting because it may well be a description of Mignini's characteristics.

1. Narcisstic: Mignini imagines himself to be the living equivalent of the fictional super-detective Sherlock Holmes, according to his statement on the Netflix documentary on the case. He doesn't admit to being wrong (incorrect) even when there is abundant proof against his hypotheses.

2. Transgressive: Mignini was prosecuted by Italian authorities for illegal wiretaps of the phones of other prosecutors, the case had to be dropped as a result of Italian judicial "errors" running out of time on the statute of limitation; he was censured by the Italian High Council of the Magistrates for unlawfully denying Sollecito a lawyer. Rather than following CPP Articles 63 and 64 as required, he took a (false) statement from Knox at 5:45 am after questioning her - then certainly a suspect under Italian law - without a defense lawyer present or notifying her of the legally required warnings (such as her right to remain silent).

3. Manipulative: Rather than following CPP Articles 63 and 64 as required, he took a (false) statement from Knox at 5:45 am after questioning her - then certainly a suspect under Italian law - without a defense lawyer present or notifying her of the legally required warnings (such as her right to remain silent). He charged Knox with calunnia against the police for her statements describing the interrogation before the Massei Court, and charged Knox's parents with criminal defamation for their repeating her statements alleging mistreatment by the police to a journalist, although Mignini did not charge the journalist, suggesting that Mignini had a coercive motivation in bringing the charge.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen said:
AK left Geude's faeces there because she knew it was his and not hers. The pair made a point of dragging Napoleoni back out of her car, as she was leaving the cottage, to have a look at it.

No one dragged Napoleoni out of her car. Why do you insist on just making up crap?

What they didn't realise is that there is too much bacteria in faeces for it to be particularly useful for DNA recovery. But the forensic police did manage to link it to Guede, who never denied it, anyway.

If they didn't realize that "there is too much bacteria in faeces for it to be particularly useful for DNA recovery" then what was the point of bringing the police's attention to it?

It's amazing how that crystal ball of yours lets you know what others are thinking or what they know.

It was rather difficult to deny it was his considering he knew he left a dump in the toilet.

Vixen said:
Unfortunately, there was no forensic sign of RG in Filomena's room but there WAS a damning mix of DNA of AK and Mez. This was via blood which scientists could identify by the high RFU's, as only blood reacts in that way.

Sure, Vixen, it was one of the NINE luminol revealed traces that just didn't have enough blood for a TMB reaction but we'll just go ahead and claim they were in blood anyway. Damn! What bad luck! Just like the postales somehow managed to miss FIVE phone calls made by A and R while they claim they were there!

What about the sample found in FR's room that was ONLY Meredith's DNA? How did that get there?

 

[LondonJohn]

What Vixen has either forgotten (or, more likely, chooses to ignore) is that phone logs do not record how long a phone rings before being picked up or going to voicemail. It only records the time starting when the call is answered by a person, a message such as "not in service", or voicemail.

And furthermore, Kercher's phone of choice when communicating within Perugia/Italy was the Italian phone which one of the Italian girls had lent her. Knox - and everyone else - knew that it was this Italian phone which mattered most when trying to contact Kercher*.

Now, whoever had Kercher's two phones in their possession (ie Guede) managed to turn off Kercher's Italian phone (but didn't manage to turn off her UK phone).

And that's important, because it meant that every time Knox tried calling Kercher's Italian phone - her preferred means of communication while in Italy, rather than her UK phone - it cut straight into the voicemail (or perhaps the "caller unavailable" message.

So....... Imagine Knox calling Kercher's Italian phone on that fateful morning. She called the phone, but it immediately connected to either the voicemail or network message. Knox wouldn't have had to hear more than a couple of seconds of that message to know that Kercher's Italian phone was switched off - or, alternatively, it was outside of signal coverage.

So Knox called back several minutes later. Once again, the call would have immediately connected to either the voicemail message or the "not available" message. And, once again, Knox would not have needed to hear more than a couple of seconds to realise that Kercher's phone was still either switched off or not connected to the network.

It's funny (in both senses of the word) when people pretend to be knowledgeable about things they don't actually have the first clue about....


* Kercher never used her UK mobile for making/receiving calls within/around Perugia, since such calls would attract significant roaming charges. Her UK mobile phone was purely used for calls to/from the UK - especially those to/from her ill mother.

 

[Stacyhs]

Argument from personal incredulity, as usual. Even assuming that she didn't have a TV in her cell (and if the guards decided to keep her isolated from the general population, they might have given her one), you just have to pretend that she never went out into the common area. Further, you're also assuming that she didn't just sit at a table by herself, or with her cellmate (I know at one point she was paired with another American who was incarcerated on drug charges, but I'm not sure when that happened) and watch TV. Finally, you're assuming that this jealousy manifested itself immediately. It very likely grew over time, especially as the police leaked all the lies about her to the media, and as the first trial progressed.

She had a TV in her cell. All cells had a TV.

 

[Stacyhs]

So why did she then implicate Patrick to cover for Rudy?


And, as has been explained to you repeatedly, and you repeatedly ignore, blood with mixed DNA does not mean mixed blood. Amanda's DNA could have gotten on the sink from brushing her teeth, and then Rudy could have dripped Meredith's blood on the sink in the same spot. What is so hard for you to grasp about this? And why didn't Amanda and Raffaele just clean it up??

Dontcha know? They thought they had committed the perfect crime and wanted to pull one over on the cops!

 

[SpitfireIX]

Madison Paxton considered herself AK's best friend and even moved to Perugia to be near her. She knew Nathaniel Rich . . .

You claimed Madison's boyfriend worked for Rolling Stone. Are you now admitting that you just made that up? And let's have a citation that she knew Rich. If they were more than casual acquaintances and that wasn't disclosed in the article, (I didn't see any such disclosure) that would be a serious violation of journalistic ethics. Not that recklessly accusing people of serious ethical violations has ever bothered you in the past, of course.

. . . and so took AK's story to him which he hyped up into a grossly exaggerated account of torture and bulldozing by the police.

I asked you to quote the sections describing "torture" and "railroading" in the article. Here again is the link. Either quote the relevant text or stop making false allegations.

It was not all night. Within 90 minutes of entering the Questura, AK offered up Lumumba's name. The interview was then terminated as she put herself at the scene. The witness statement was drawn up and AK signed it. She then went to sleep whilst the police needed the prosecutor to authorise any next steps. He arrived at about 5:30am. There was no 'interrogation', interview, bullying, torture or intimidation between circa 1:00am and 5:45am. Pack of lies.

Amanda says otherwise. Due to, inter alia, the failure of the police to make a written record of the interrogation (as required by law), their failure to record the interrogation (as was standard procedure), Mignini's failure to investigate her allegations of mistreatment (as required by law, and by the ECHR), the police's failure to provide her with an attorney (as required by law, and by the ECHR), and the police's treatment of Patrick after he was arrested, I take her word over theirs.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Be that as it may, witness testimony is acceptable as circumstantial evidence. The said witness is subject to cross-examination and that is when their version of direct testimony is tested. The jury - with the legal guidance of the judge - is free to take it or leave it. It really is as crude as that. But they do not come to a verdict based solely on the testimony of one witness, they look at the case as a whole.

The hilited is untrue; there certainly are cases that have turned on the testimony of a single witness.

Further, look at Curatolo's testimony. He was accepted as credible by the first-instance court, even though he clearly shouldn't have been, yet he completely fell apart during the appeal trial and was rightly rejected. Yet you excoriate the appeal court for reaching a different verdict.

 

[Numbers]

Boy, some people are still REALLY pissed that the Italian system finally did its job (although far too belatedly, and it still cannot do its job re Knox's criminal slander conviction). It's almost as if those people still cling to the misguided belief that there was sufficient evidence - credible, reliable evidence, that is - to safely convict Knox and/or Sollecito of anything to do with the murder. It's almost as if they still refuse to believe that not only was there not one piece of (credible, reliable) evidence pointing to the involvement of Knox and/or Sollecito... but also that all of the evidence was in fact entirely compatible with Guede acting alone (and there was more than enough inculpatory evidence to convict Guede of the murder).

Not really too sure why all but one person here thinks there's any point whatsoever in rehashing the murder-related aspects of this case. I can understand ongoing discussions around Knox's still-live criminal slander conviction, but the other stuff? Disengage already........

LondonJohn, do you have any thoughts on the retrial, re-conviction, and the next steps?