Not even you believe that. And even if you did it doesn't make your random jumble into a coherent story. RG got cut trying to stop the bleeding while the wounds were being inflicted? But he didn't run away then. He ran away when he later heard the other two downstairs and that scared him.
What I, along with everyone else currently participating in this thread, take with huge pinches of salt is your opinions of Amanda and Raffaele, and of this case in general.
As has been discussed, Amanda had more reason to know that Filomena, and certainly more reason to know than you.
See below.
And Amanda said Meredith only locked her door when she went "away for the weekend" or was changing. So, the only disagreement is whether Meredith locked her door when she was changing her clothes. Of what possible significance is this to the case, and what would Amanda possibly have to gain by lying about it??
I explained that in my post, and, as usual, none of the possibilities reflect well on you. Either a) you didn't bother to read that part of my post, b) you did read that part of my post, but you didn't comprehend it, or c) you did read and comprehend that part of my post, but you're just pretending you didn't.
This entire exchange was pointless, as is your nitpicking about whether Amanda or Filomena was correct about whether Meredith was in the habit of locking her door when she was changing. Whichever one was correct, they both found it alarming that Meredith's door was locked, because they knew that she wasn't away for the weekend, and she obviously wasn't in her room just taking an inordinately long amount of time to change clothes.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
What I, along with everyone else currently participating in this thread, take with huge pinches of salt is your opinions of Amanda and Raffaele, and of this case in general.
As has been discussed, Amanda had more reason to know that Filomena, and certainly more reason to know than you.
See below.
And Amanda said Meredith only locked her door when she went "away for the weekend" or was changing. So, the only disagreement is whether Meredith locked her door when she was changing her clothes. Of what possible significance is this to the case, and what would Amanda possibly have to gain by lying about it??
I explained that in my post, and, as usual, none of the possibilities reflect well on you. Either a) you didn't bother to read that part of my post, b) you did read that part of my post, but you didn't comprehend it, or c) you did read and comprehend that part of my post, but you're just pretending you didn't.
This entire exchange was pointless, as is your nitpicking about whether Amanda or Filomena was correct about whether Meredith was in the habit of locking her door when she was changing. Whichever one was correct, they both found it alarming that Meredith's door was locked, because they knew that she wasn't away for the weekend, and she obviously wasn't in her room just taking an inordinately long amount of time to change clothes.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Finally, I observe that you completely missed the point (possibly intentionally) of @Planigale's and my exchange. We were discussing the likelihood that Rudy might have found Meredith's keys in her door, but you just couldn't pass up the opportunity to butt in and take a totally unjustified shot at Amanda.
Well, many of us were saying all of this within this forum from about Year Three onwards. And we were right. And we were proved right, albeit scandalously belatedly.It's a damn shame you didn't stand up in front of the court and say all of this on Day One! Could have saved everyone eighteen years of shillyshallying.
No, they don't, but even if they did, it wouldn't matter. You don't get to cherry-pick the parts of Rudy's claims that you like just because they incriminate Amanda and Raffaele.
And, as I've observed, and you've dismissed, because it doesn't help you smear Amanda and Raffaele, nothing Rudy says happened during Meredith's murder can by accepted without substantial corroboration.
I did. I didn't see anything that contradicts my point, which was, again, that the footprints attributed to Amanda tested negative for both blood and Meredith's DNA. So, even assuming they were correctly attributed, there's no reason to believe that they were made during the murder.
Assumes facts not in evidence. You love to pretend that your critics are acting from emotion and can't possibly have arrived at their conclusions based on facts and logic, so you can just dismiss their criticism out of hand,. without actually having to attempt to refute it.
There you have us, but it's because of the overwhelming evidence of her incompetence and dishonesty, and not because of her conclusions per se.
Speaking frankly, but not intending to be unkind (though I imagine you won't believe that), you've got a lot of nerve asking someone else to read carefully, reasonably, and impartially, considering your extensive history of misreading, mischaracterizing, or simply ignoring other people's posts in this and other threads.
As has been explained to you ad nauseam, by people more knowledgeable about the science than I, mixed DNA does not imply mixed blood.
The science is either wrong, or being misinterpreted. This has also been explained to you repeatedly.
No. As has also been explained to you, the entire investigation and trial suffered from unwarranted assumptions, tunnel vision, and confirmation bias at every stage.
A court decision doesn't magically make incorrect science correct.
Great. My expensive new AI-powered weapons-grade Irony-o-Meter just made a loud popping noise and issued a foul metallic-smelling smoke. I hope it's still under warranty.
It's a damn shame you didn't stand up in front of the court and say all of this on Day One! Could have saved everyone eighteen years of shillyshallying.
I've reviewed the reports on the laptop and can find no mention of Amelie being downloaded "the end of October" rather than on Nov. 1 as Amanda said. Unless you can quote and cite otherwise, I'll have to consign this the thick "Unsupported Claims" file. I might have to start another file.
Popovic's statement was used against him because:
He made that statement during the coercive, unrecorded, lawyer-less interrogation. As with Amanda, the court used his confused and coerced statement against him rather than admit any interrogation coercion by the police.
No, that's YOUR usual mischaracterization which has become quite your habit.
Well, LJ, an answer that I and others have given in the past is that we don't do it for the benefit of the conspiracy theorists, because we know they're exceedingly unlikely ever to change. We mainly do it for the benefit of any curious but uninformed people who might come across a particular thread and wonder whether there might be something to the woo presented.
Conclusion: Not only does Italy have a relatively large number of ECHR cases finding violations of the Convention - including cases of unfair trials, but also other types of unfair practices by the authorities and government, but it is slower than many other democracies in Western Europe in addressing its mistakes or misconduct.To understand the Knox - Sollecito case, one must understand not only the details and alleged details of the case, but also understand the workings of Italy's judicial system - not merely its criminal and procedural laws, but also how the authorities - the police, prosecutors, and courts work in practice. Are the procedural laws strictly followed by the authorities? Are the reasons given by the courts in their judgments logical, reasonable, and consistent with the credible evidence of a case, or are the judgments sometimes unfair? When the authorities make mistakes or act unfairly, perhaps even unlawfully, do the mechanisms of the judicial process result in appropriate correction and redress? How quickly do a necessary correction and redress follow after an unfairness is brought to the attention of the authorities by, for example, a judgment of a violation of the Convention by the ECHR?
Let's gain some idea of the answers to these questions by examining the number of [leading] pending ECHR cases before the CoM and how many of these cases have at least some initial response (an Action Plan or proposed Action Report) from the Respondent State for some states of interest.
Italy; pop. about 59 million. Pending cases: 74; Required AP/AR: 69; Received: 53; Awaited: 17 = 24.6%
Ukraine; pop. about 38 million. Pending cases: 111; Required AP/AR: 111; Received: 107; Awaited: 4 = 3.6%
UK; pop. about 68 million. Pending cases: 7; Required AP/AR: 7; Received: 7; Awaited: 0 = 0%
France; pop. about 67 million. Pending cases: 22; Required AP/AR: 22; Received: 22; Awaited: 0 = 0%
Germany; pop. about 84 million. Pending cases: 6; Required AP/AR: 6; Received: 6; Awaited: 0 = 0%
Spain; pop. about 49 million. Pending cases: 21; Required AP/AR: 21; Received: 20; Awaited: 1 = 4.8%
Turkiye; pop. about 86 million. Pending cases: 139; Required AP/AR: 131; Received: 127; Awaited: 4 = 3.1%
Russia; pop. about 144 million. Pending cases: 246; Required AP/AR: 167; Received: 74; Awaited: 93 = 55.7%*
* Although Russia ceased being a member of the CoE in 2022, under the Convention, it remains legally obligated to work within the Convention to correct and redress violations of the Convention up to 6 months after the date it left and was expelled from the Council of Europe. That means that the ECHR was allowed under the Convention to accept applications against Russia until 16 September 2022. See:
Some guilter years ago suggested that Italy could "solve" the Knox ECHR issues by leaving the Council of Europe. That leaving would not release Italy from a legal treaty obligation to redress the violations found by the ECHR in the Knox v. Italy case under the Convention.
Conclusion: Not only does Italy have a relatively large number of ECHR cases finding violations of the Convention - including cases of unfair trials, but also other types of unfair practices by the authorities and government, but it is slower than many other democracies in Western Europe in addressing its mistakes or misconduct.
The data on Leading Pending cases, Required AP/AR, Received AP/AR, and Awaited AP/AR are from the HUDOC EXEC database:
HUDOC-EXEC
hudoc.exec.coe.int
I calculated the percentages for the Awaited AP/AR as NUMBER AWAITED/NUMBER REQUIRED x 100.
https://www.themurderofmeredithkercher.net/docupl/filelibrary/docs/presentations/2008-09-24-Slides-Consultant-Defense-Vinci-finding-bra-clasp.pdf
The Dec. 18 collection of the bra clearly showed egregious violations of anti-contamination protocols including being directly touched by a visibly dirty and admittedly unchanged gloves.
Every single court was criticized. That's par for the course. Some criticisms are valid, some are not.
Hellmann was not criticized for saying "Anything is possible". Chieffi (pg. 33) criticized the experts:
Yep. Taking each piece of evidence and ruling on its own inculpatory merit rather than considering everything 'as a whole' as if the 'bigger picture' somehow makes each piece of evidence ruled non-inculpatory now inculpatory.
Hellmann did give an explanation why the new experts were appointed. From the Chieffi MR (pg 15):
Citation needed and requested. I can find no such statement in Nencini. He did mention "international standards" on page 253:
LOL. That is clearly YOUR claim. Unless you can quote and cite evidence of this?
You continue to claim every acquitting judge, defense lawyer, defense expert, defense witness was "bent", "paid off", "incompetent" or in a" conspiracy" to get AK and RS off. Five years ago you were posting this nonsense and you're still at it:
But you're not a conspiracist!
Yes, he did and he also provided his rationale for it as I quoted and cited above.
And everyone else who doesn't agree with the PGP narrative.
You don't even know who did it. It's that basic.
You don't need to guess. The courts worked it out for you a decade ago.
There aren't enough laughing dogs to do that one justice.
Even granting, arguendo, that the court had a sound evidentiary basis for determining whether Filomena was correct about Meredith's never locking her door unless she was away for an extended length of time (which they didn't), please indicate where the court so ruled.
