Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have documented that the FSA files are important ... Then the failure to release them to the defense means that the defendants are being tried on the basis of evidence that they cannot see, and therefore cannot challenge properly. Does this not strike you as wrong?
.
I they are so important, then why didn't the defence for them?

I know your reply: they asked for the date the testing was done and that's in the FSA file.

Well it was too late in the day when the defence got around to that question. Maybe too many resources had been squandered on the PR campaign and not enough on the legal defence.

Clearly, it's more important that David Marriott be able to pay his mortgage.
 
Bob the Donkey writes:

So, where did Raffaele's DNA come from to be spread around? Besides the cigarette butt in the kitchen that had been collected 46 days prior, none of the other swabs tested positive for DNA from Raffaele.

I don't know where it came from, but he had been in the house, and he left his fingerprints on the outside of her door. And the investigators, including Stefanoni, were complete slobs in handling the evidence.

The real question is, what happened that night? Do you believe the latest official story, that Amanda and Raffaele slipped off to his room to have sex while Rudy sat on the toilet, and then Rudy decided to rape Meredith, and instead of helping her, Amanda and Raffaele decided to help Guede?

I don't find that narrative believable. But what is more important is that it is pure speculation. The evidence tells the story of what Rudy did. Rudy left a bloody handprint on the victim's pillow. Rudy left DNA inside the victim's body, on her clothing, and on her purse. Rudy left a trail of bloody shoe prints leading down the corridor. And Rudy left the footprint on the bathmat when he took off his shoe to wash it in the bidet after the murder, which is why a trace of the victim's blood was found in the drain of the bidet.

It all adds up. But, if you try to work in luminol footprints and Raffaele's DNA on the bra fastener and Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife, there is no scenario that makes the least bit of sense. Then, if you add in the speculative BS about a cleanup with bleach that preserved the Rudy evidence and the dust on the floor while selectively extracting every trace of Amanda and Raffaele, it gets even more confusing and improbable.
 
Bob the Donkey writes:

So, where did Raffaele's DNA come from to be spread around? Besides the cigarette butt in the kitchen that had been collected 46 days prior, none of the other swabs tested positive for DNA from Raffaele.

I don't know where it came from, but he had been in the house, and he left his fingerprints on the outside of her door. And the investigators, including Stefanoni, were complete slobs in handling the evidence.
.
Are you suggesting that in addition to dust (a Halides claim), forensic quality DNA comes from fingerprints?

While it's clear that Raffaele had been in the cottage before the crime, by his own account he and Amanda spent most of their time in his flat. He has ever suggested that he ever entered Meredith's room.

He has "admitted" that he pricked Meredith with the knife (an explanation for her DNA on the knife), but he has never described, for example, handling Meredith's bra, to hang dry the wash some day in the short week that they went out together (excluding the day when Amanda was not with him).

So we have "Libby" Johnson et al signing up that the DNA on the bra could theoretically be from contamination, but no feasible explanation of how that could have occurred.

You've brought up the possibility of entry into the cottage, but nothing demonstrates that that happened, nor could that offer a real explanation of how Raffaele's DNA ended up on the bra clasp. DNA doesn't blow with the breeze.

The evidence tells the story of what Rudy did. Rudy left a bloody handprint on the victim's pillow. Rudy left DNA inside the victim's body, on her clothing, and on her purse. Rudy left a trail of bloody shoe prints leading down the corridor. And Rudy left the footprint on the bathmat when he took off his shoe to wash it in the bidet after the murder, which is why a trace of the victim's blood was found in the drain of the bidet.

It all adds up.
.
It all adds up, Charlie, in the sense that one isn't necessarily lying if one says "I have 10 cherries on this plate", when the plate altogether contains 30 cherries plus 2 oranges and 4 apples.

FOA should stop cherry picking the evidence, and start worrying about the ample evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. It would also be nice if there was some coinciding of their alibis.
========================

As for your theory of him taking off his shoes to wash them, I still don't understand. Rudy would have to be a Chinese acrobat to stand on the bathmat, and wash his shoes behind his back in the bidet.
(Did I post this already? If so, I apologise on Charlie's and my behalf for bringing up the "acrobatic Rudy" issue again)



But, if you try to work in luminol footprints and Raffaele's DNA on the bra fastener and Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife, there is no scenario that makes the least bit of sense.
.
Except the scenario where Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the attack on Meredith.
 
Last edited:
He (Raffaele) has "admitted" that he pricked Meredith with the knife (an explanation for her DNA on the knife), but he has never described, for example, handling Meredith's bra, to hang dry the wash some day in the short week that they went out together (excluding the day when Amanda was not with him).
.
Wait, before Hilades jumps on me with a quote from Dr. Sollecito, yes, I have to admit that I got it wrong:

Dr. Sollecito did speak at one point on behalf of his son to explain that Raffaele's DNA was on Meredith's bra for an innocent reason: Amanda and Meredith got on so well that they wore each others' bras, and since Raffaele was intimate with Amanda in the short week they were together, his DNA could have got on the bra that way.

Thankfully, Giulia Bongiorno, applying her own female experience, did not present that explanation in the courtroom.
 
Kermit wrote:

Except the scenario where Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the attack on Meredith.

Do you accept the court's scenario in which Rudy, Raffaele, and Amanda all ended up at the cottage with Meredith, and Raffaele and Amanda withdrew to her room to have sex, which got Rudy turned on, so he took a dump and then decided rape Meredith, and Amanda and Raffaele decided to help him? Does Judge Massei's reasoning pass the sniff test?
 
Bob the Donkey writes:

So, where did Raffaele's DNA come from to be spread around? Besides the cigarette butt in the kitchen that had been collected 46 days prior, none of the other swabs tested positive for DNA from Raffaele.

I don't know where it came from, but he had been in the house, and he left his fingerprints on the outside of her door. And the investigators, including Stefanoni, were complete slobs in handling the evidence.

The real question is, what happened that night? Do you believe the latest official story, that Amanda and Raffaele slipped off to his room to have sex while Rudy sat on the toilet, and then Rudy decided to rape Meredith, and instead of helping her, Amanda and Raffaele decided to help Guede?

I don't find that narrative believable. But what is more important is that it is pure speculation. The evidence tells the story of what Rudy did. Rudy left a bloody handprint on the victim's pillow. Rudy left DNA inside the victim's body, on her clothing, and on her purse. Rudy left a trail of bloody shoe prints leading down the corridor. And Rudy left the footprint on the bathmat when he took off his shoe to wash it in the bidet after the murder, which is why a trace of the victim's blood was found in the drain of the bidet.

It all adds up. But, if you try to work in luminol footprints and Raffaele's DNA on the bra fastener and Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife, there is no scenario that makes the least bit of sense. Then, if you add in the speculative BS about a cleanup with bleach that preserved the Rudy evidence and the dust on the floor while selectively extracting every trace of Amanda and Raffaele, it gets even more confusing and improbable.

Actually, the scenario I most subscribe to is this:

Rudy, Raffaele and Amanda had spent time together before. Maybe Amanda wanted to pull a prank on Meredith, similar to the one she's rumored to have pulled in the past. Maybe it started with the 3 of them at Raffaele's flat. They got a little drunk, a little high...Amanda decided she wanted to pull the prank that night. So they grab one of Raffaele's kitchen knives and head off to Amanda's cottage.

Once there, maybe they start with Amanda and Raffaele restraining Meredith - and Rudy starts by toying with her manually. As he claims, Rudy gets sick from whatever he ate earlier that day (kabobs, I believe) and runs to the toilet. While doing his business, Amanda and Raffaele up the ante with their knives. Whether by accident, or in the drunken stupor of the moment (whichever), Meredith is cut badly. Maybe the knife is being held with the point at her throat and she slips and falls on it, maybe it's thrust into her - doesn't really matter at this point other than to determine intent. Regardless of intent, the knife pierces Meredith's throat. She lets out a scream, Rudy hears it, runs to the bedroom where Amanda and Raffaele are already fleeing from. He rushes back to one of the bathrooms to grab towels to help Meredith (as he claims). Gets back with the towels, does what he can but realizes there's no hope for her. Grabs his stuff and exits via the front door.

Meanwhile, Amanda and Raffaele have dumped Meredith's phones and headed into the square to be seen for a potential alibi/whatever.

The two of them return to Raffaele's flat, clean the knife as best they can (nearly cleaning the entire thing of Meredith's DNA...missing only a tiny crack). Maybe they sleep, maybe they don't. Either way, early the next morning, they return to the cottage. Arrange Meredith's body, break the upstairs window (whether from inside or outside doesn't matter, there's no real evidence of a burglary - just the appearance of one and any of the 3 could have broken the window). Do their best to mop up what little evidence remains of their presence in Meredith's room the night before.


That, actually, fits all the evidence and, to be dreadfully honest, doesn't seem all that far-fetched an explanation.
 
Kermit wrote:

Except the scenario where Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the attack on Meredith.

Do you accept the court's scenario in which Rudy, Raffaele, and Amanda all ended up at the cottage with Meredith, and Raffaele and Amanda withdrew to her room to have sex, which got Rudy turned on, so he took a dump and then decided rape Meredith, and Amanda and Raffaele decided to help him? Does Judge Massei's reasoning pass the sniff test?

Yes and no. I don't see Rudy getting turned on enough while having a bowel movement to become so distracted as to not flush.

Regardless of what scenario you subscribe to, you have to account for his lack of flushing as well as multiple people being involved.

Who knows (other than those 3)...maybe Rudy did break in. But that doesn't explain how we go from him being startled by Meredith to the presence of multiple assailants. Are you going to say Amanda and Raffaele broke in with him?
 
Do you accept the court's scenario in which Rudy, Raffaele, and Amanda all ended up at the cottage with Meredith, and Raffaele and Amanda withdrew to her room to have sex, which got Rudy turned on ....
Actually, the scenario I most subscribe to is this: ...
.
Charlie, like any scenario, it's just that: a scenario. The court's works. So does Bob's and perhaps other variations on the theme work too.

What doesn't work is lone-wolf Rudy climbing up the outer wall, breaking in through a hole in the window pane which is smaller than him (or making a complicated manoeuvre on the higher up inside locking system of the window to open it), then going through things in Filomena's room yet not taking anything of value, then him attacking Meredith with more than one knife and at the same time restraining her (like some multi-arm Hindu god).

Then him hopping around in the bathroom on miniature hobbit feet, taking time to clean to clean his shoes but not his shoeprints, then locking Meredith in her room (how did he know where the key was), and taking money and phones, but no portable computers.

Oh, and him cutting off her bra after she was dead. What, in a fast moving evening he evolved professionally from drifter, to break-in thief, to rapist, to murderer, to necrophiliac.

Yeah, you may feel that your 10 cherries add up to something, but it doesn't convince me, and more importantly, it doesn't convince the court.
 
Last edited:
multiple times

.
I they are so important, then why didn't the defence for them?

I know your reply: they asked for the date the testing was done and that's in the FSA file.

Well it was too late in the day when the defence got around to that question. Maybe too many resources had been squandered on the PR campaign and not enough on the legal defence.

Clearly, it's more important that David Marriott be able to pay his mortgage.

You are confusing the issue. The defense asked the prosecution for the fsa files more than once, and they were always refused. The fact that Sara Gino said that she did not have the testing dates merely confirms that the fsa files were not released.
 
.Dr. Sollecito did speak at one point on behalf of his son to explain that Raffaele's DNA was on Meredith's bra for an innocent reason: Amanda and Meredith got on so well that they wore each others' bras...

Such nonsense but it does help explain Raffaele's constant lies, he learned lying from his father. The photo of Amanda's sisters in front of the cottage also says quite a bit about how she was raised as well.
 
halides1 said:
In September of 2009 Sara Gino said that they did not receive the dates on which items were tested. This is essential information, inasmuch as it bears on the question of possible contamination. In other words the defense was still not given what they needed. You have been told this before, and you chose to ignore it. Some might call that sophistry.

WHAT are you talking about? Back in June they complained they didn't have all the data they wanted. They requested the data. The prosecution said 'fine', so the judge said 'fine' and they were given the data and trial was adjourned for two months while the defence reviewed it. They got the data they wanted/needed, not that it helped them a jot. That's why it wasn't given them in the first place, as it wasn't really relevant. So,k I would suggest that it's YOU who is using sophistry in an attempt to claim that they are somehow currently in deficit of data when they were given it way back in June!

halides1 said:
Frank Sfarzo did not think that Dr. Tagliabracci was an effective witness. I did not entirely agree with Frank's assessment when I first read summaries of his testimony, and I agree even less now. The defense expert witnesses were hamstrung by the lack of information that should have been provided by the prosecution, especially but not limited to the electronic data files.

Tagliabracci fell flat on his face in court. First he tried to argue it wasn't Raffaele's DNA on rge clasp. Then he tried to argue it was contamination. Secondly, he was unaware of the total volume of Raffaele's DNA on the clasp when he testified (1.4 ng), the prosecution had to tell him while he was on on the stand. Finally and crucially, he only examined (or was aware of) 8 of Raffaele's loci on the clasp, when in fact there were 17. His time on the stand was a disaster for the defence.

halides1 said:
Ms. Nadeau has a book coming out very shortly; therefore, now is a good time to examine her body of work.

Show's how off the ball you are. Her book's already been published. And while the book certainly doesn't help, it's not the reason for the thuggery against her...this has been going on for over a year now, before there was even a sniff of any book.

halides1 said:
You haven't seen the fsa files, so how can you be sure?

Neither have you. And yet, you seem quite sure.
 
And again, to repeat Stilicho's question...link???

And again, what work? Unless I'm missing something what was in that report that wasn't already in the public domain? What unique information did she provide?
 
volumes are measured in liters

Secondly, he was unaware of the total volume of Raffaele's DNA on the clasp when he testified (1.4 ng).

Excuse me but ng (nanogram) is a unit of mass, not volume. You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
 
Wilkes said:
I wasn't in the courtroom and I don't speak Italian. But, I have a library of primary source information about this case.

What?? 'What' library? What 'primary source'? You don't get away with just throwing that out there Charlie, you need to clarify exactly what you mean by that.

Wilkes said:
Don't you think some of the other reporters present would have mentioned such an outburst?

They DID mention the outburst. They just used different wording to the 'F' word, in order to make it printable. We went through the same thing with Raffaele's statement in the police station. Some reports had him saying "I told you a load of bull***t before", while others have him saying "I told you a load of rubbish before". It's and editor's call.

Wilkes said:
It matters because you say Nadeau cares only about the truth. I don't agree, and I have provided examples of why I don't agree.

Her integrity is clear. There is a difference between making honest mistakes (and all the best reporters will on occasion, especially when processing a high volume of data from multiple sources) and being deliberately deceptive or careless with the facts. You can't seem to be able to tell the difference. Either that, or you don't want to.

Wilkes said:
The police were in and out of that place many times between the murder and December 18.

Not before retrieving the clasp. Your above statement is incorrect.
 
You are confusing the issue. The defense asked the prosecution for the fsa files more than once, and they were always refused. The fact that Sara Gino said that she did not have the testing dates merely confirms that the fsa files were not released.

False. The defence got what they asked for. This was stated in COURT, by the JUDGE. Was the judge lying?
 
.Dr. Sollecito did speak at one point on behalf of his son to explain that Raffaele's DNA was on Meredith's bra for an innocent reason: Amanda and Meredith got on so well that they wore each others' bras...

Such nonsense


Why do you call it nonsense? On the morning of Nov. 1, Meredith's own laundry was in the washing machine. Amanda testified that on that morning Meredith went to take something out or put something into the machine. Meredith's friends testified that she called to say she would be late getting to the party. So what is Meredith to do? Miss a party, wear a wet or dirty bra or borrow a freshly cleaned and dry bra from her close friend that's sitting there on the drying rack in the hall outside their rooms.
 
Why do you call it nonsense? On the morning of Nov. 1, Meredith's own laundry was in the washing machine. Amanda testified that on that morning Meredith went to take something out or put something into the machine. Meredith's friends testified that she called to say she would be late getting to the party. So what is Meredith to do? Miss a party, wear a wet or dirty bra or borrow a freshly cleaned and dry bra from her close friend that's sitting there on the drying rack in the hall outside their rooms.

What???
 
Edited by LashL: 
Removed personal remarks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom