Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

I doubt that anyone would speak up even it s/he were related to any of the above.

Inappropriate responses are the mark of the mentally disturbed. It is hard to have an appropriate response sometimes without knowing who is in the audience. Inappropriate grief is nuts, but so is inappropriate sensitivity.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium, I found some more information about calunnia, written by "Ivstitia," an Italian living in the U.S. who used to post quite a bit about the case. This is from an examiner.com article; he makes additional comments about the topic further down the page.

Thank you for the information, so this was a normal process of Italian law. Now I wonder if the other suits filed by Mignini are also commonplace in Italy. Is twelve suits by a prosecutor for defamation unusual in Italy?

 

[Kaosium]

That makes no sense. I don't know what is the problem to you. Rudy didn't try to avoid implicating Raffaele and Amanda, but he just gradually implicated them only in a degree when they begun to implicate him, but with the circumspection due to remaining within the boundaries of a story in which he was innocent.

Rudy left evidence all over the crime scene and fled the country. He was already implicated up to his neck, if he's going to blame anyone else it wouldn't have been a bushy-haired left-handed stranger, it would be the two people he 'knew' were there and whom the authorities presumably could gather evidence on. There's no reason to hide their 'involvement' at any stage of the process, and every reason to blame them.

This is but an example of why there can be no coherent rational theory of how they were involved in the crime. There's too much stuff like this, where much of the available information makes no sense under the assumption of guilt, but turned around makes perfect sense in the context of the police gathering 'evidence' of innocent people.

That's why I say if there's no physical evidence, no rational theory of their involvement, and no reasonable motive there's no reason to think they're guilty. If you allow for the possibility they were innocent of murder, then the whole thing suddenly makes sense. It doesn't make the police look good at all, which would be kind of natural if they gathered evidence of innocent people and tried to make it pass muster in a court.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Inappropriate responses are the mark of the mentally disturbed. It is hard to have an appropriate response sometimes without knowing who is in the audience. Inappropriate grief is nuts, but so is inappropriate sensitivity.

What??

I was simply stating if someone on this forum was a relative of, say, Amanda, the person would most likely not make that public as the resulting questions and PM-ing would be overwhelming. Sometimes the anonymity of an internet posting site is attractive because of, well, the anonymity.

 

[Mary_H]

Inappropriate responses are the mark of the mentally disturbed. It is hard to have an appropriate response sometimes without knowing who is in the audience. Inappropriate grief is nuts, but so is inappropriate sensitivity.

I don't understand the meaning of this post. Could you elaborate?

 

[Brooktrout]

This discussion about the DNA findings from Sollecito's house is interesting, which is perhaps why Machiavelli wants to steer the conversation away from it. It casts DNA findings from the cottage in a very mundane, everyday light. So just as Halkides has been pointing out, one would expect to find the DNA of housemates mixed together. Look: Knox and Sollecito only knew eachother a few days, and there it is.

 

[Malkmus]

(note by the way: on Raffaele's flick knife there is also Knos DNA).

Jeeze, where wasn't her DNA found?

Oh that's right, the room where the murder was committed.

 

[Justinian2]

I don't understand the meaning of this post. Could you elaborate?

OK.

What??

I was simply stating if someone on this forum was a relative of, say, Amanda, the person would most likely not make that public as the resulting questions and PM-ing would be overwhelming. Sometimes the anonymity of an internet posting site is attractive because of, well, the anonymity.

You made a great response. I was just trying to give the reason why I wanted to know if anybody that knew AK, RS, or MK was posting here. I didn't make myself clear.

OK, perhaps I didn't tell all.

Fifteen years ago I started one of the first police brutality forums on the net. One day the front page headline was about a guy that died because he was shot by a policeman. The father of the man that was killed posted a message on my forum. He was totally crushed and griefstriken. Then some person - perhaps the police officer that shot the man's son - replied that the son deserved to die because of what he did. [He tried to drive his car away from a policeman trying to stop the car] I banned the poster who made the insensitive reply - probably the policeman -for the rest of his days.

The point is, that nobody should post insensitive things to the family of the victim. I've had many victims of national news post to my various sites. I should have expected it to happen here too. Is there anyone on this thread that is a friend of MK, RS, or AK?

 

[Machiavelli]

Rudy left evidence all over the crime scene and fled the country. He was already implicated up to his neck, if he's going to blame anyone else it wouldn't have been a bushy-haired left-handed stranger, it would be the two people he 'knew' were there and whom the authorities presumably could gather evidence on. There's no reason to hide their 'involvement' at any stage of the process, and every reason to blame them.

This is but an example of why there can be no coherent rational theory of how they were involved in the crime. There's too much stuff like this, where much of the available information makes no sense under the assumption of guilt, but turned around makes perfect sense in the context of the police gathering 'evidence' of innocent people.

That's why I say if there's no physical evidence, no rational theory of their involvement, and no reasonable motive there's no reason to think they're guilty. If you allow for the possibility they were innocent of murder, then the whole thing suddenly makes sense. It doesn't make the police look good at all, which would be kind of natural if they gathered evidence of innocent people and tried to make it pass muster in a court.

You think Rudy was implicated to his neck. You may think there was no reason to hide their involvement because everything against him was proven. He may not have subscribed to your point of view. So from his point of view, it makes sense. I think Amanda and Raffaele are too implicated to their neck by the physical evidence and by their lies as much as Rudy Guede.
Your claim is pointless, because you are the first who is not able to provide a rationale for why a "guilty" Rudy should blame an unknown. Why not just provide the police with a testimony on the people they have already arrested? One possible answer is, the obvious, he doesn't accuse them because he is afraid of something, as always happens in crimes committed by multiple individuals in association, what the person tries to avoid most is the testimony of the others. They don't accuse each other because they don't want to expose themselves to a retailation testimony.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Well, it's not very interesting, this can be read by everybody also in the (Italian) Massei report:

Nella stanza da bagno era stata fatta l'evidenziazione col luminol ed i risultati erano stati negativi tranne una traccia, la 95: presunta sostanza ematica con il risultato genetico: Sollecito più Knox; un'altra campionatura effettuata sul pavimento aveva dato come risultato il profilo di Knox.

...

Sui boxer elasticizzati era risultata sostanza ematica su due
campionature, sangue appartenente alla Knox; sul coltello a serramanico erano state effettuate 4 campionature risultate negative dove era stata cercata sostanza ematica; sulla quarta campionatura che aveva riguardato il manico era stato trovato il profilo genetico di Sollecito più Knox.

(p. 201)

"presunta sostnza ematica" is something visible without chemical enhancements. Blood-like is a translation, but exactly this means "a substance that is presumed to be blood", something found in a spot of the bathroom that was already visible before the luminol enhanchement. "Sostanza ematica" is blood with no doubt.
(note by the way: on Raffaele's flick knife there is also Knos DNA).

Here is the description for Sample 95 in the index of the DNA test results prepared by the Scientific Police:

Rep. 95 - Campionatura di presunta traccia ematica effettuata sul pavimento del bagno (evidenziazione mediante tecnica del "luminol")

We have already agreed that Massei is an idiot, and now we know he is a sloppy researcher as well, because this refers to a luminol stain with mixed DNA of Amanda and Raffaele. If you agree with me that it means nothing, we should then revisit the question of how much probative value can be assigned to Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's DNA in the bathroom they shared at the cottage. Do you think maybe it is being used as evidence simply because they don't have any real evidence?

 

[samba]

You I think Amanda and Raffaele are too implicated to their neck by the physical evidence and by their lies as much as Rudy Guede.

There's as much physical evidence against Amanda and Raffaele as there is against Rudy? Really?

 

[Malkmus]

One possible answer is, the obvious, he doesn't accuse them because he is afraid of something, as always happens in crimes committed by multiple individuals in association, what the person tries to avoid most is the testimony of the others. They don't accuse each other because they don't want to expose themselves to a retailation testimony.

Exactly, Machiavelli. But in this case he did implicate his "co-conspirators" and guess what? No retaliation from them. They didn't turn on him and come clean about being there and try to blame him for everything. Amanda and Raf have never admitted to being there that night. If they were, then after Rudy implicated them (on top of the evidence the police had against them) you'd think they would have come clean. But there hasn't been any "turning on each other" because only one of the three convicted was actually there that night. And Rudy's story didn't involve anymore detail about what Amanda and Rudy might have done to Meredith that night because he has no idea, because they weren't there with him.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

You think Rudy was implicated to his neck. You may think there was no reason to hide their involvement because everything against him was proven. He may not have subscribed to your point of view. So from his point of view, it makes sense. I think Amanda and Raffaele are too implicated to their neck by the physical evidence and by their lies as much as Rudy Guede.

Let's review the physical evidence against Rudy found inside the murder room:

- Rudy's bloody fingerprints on a pillow underneath the victim's body
- Rudy's DNA inside the victim's vagina
- Rudy's DNA on two items of the victim's clothing and on the victim's purse
- Rudy's bloody shoe prints

Now let's look at the physical evidence against Amanda and Raffaele in that same room:

- Raffaele's DNA on the metal hook of a bra fastener, collected and handled under circumstances we have discussed at length, which in no way can be considered sound forensic procedure.

You think that's comparable?

Your claim is pointless, because you are the first who is not able to provide a rationale for why a "guilty" Rudy should blame an unknown. Why not just provide the police with a testimony on the people they have already arrested? One possible answer is, the obvious, he doesn't accuse them because he is afraid of something, as always happens in crimes committed by multiple individuals in association, what the person tries to avoid most is the testimony of the others. They don't accuse each other because they don't want to expose themselves to a retailation testimony.

When Rudy was arrested, he didn't know if the charges against Amanda and Raffaele would stick, so he didn't want to tie his story to them. After he'd been in the can for a few months, and his lawyers explained the situation, he realized his best option was to point the finger at them. From what I hear, he can expect to be a free man before his 30th birthday. Rudy has done very well for himself.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Exactly, Machiavelli. But in this case he did implicate his "co-conspirators" and guess what? No retaliation from them. They didn't turn on him and come clean about being there and try to blame him for everything. Amanda and Raf have never admitted to being there that night. If they were, then after Rudy implicated them (on top of the evidence the police had against them) you'd think they would have come clean. But there hasn't been any "turning on each other" because only one of the three convicted was actually there that night. And Rudy's story didn't involve anymore detail about what Amanda and Rudy might have done to Meredith that night because he has no idea, because they weren't there with him.

Oh, Really.....

 

[Malkmus]

Oh, Really.....

True story.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You think Rudy was implicated to his neck. You may think there was no reason to hide their involvement because everything against him was proven. He may not have subscribed to your point of view. So from his point of view, it makes sense.

What one usually does is provide reasons to support an opinion, and reasons have been given to support the opinion that Rudy's behaviour makes little sense if Amanda and Raffaele were involved.

Rudy making up a story where one third party murdered Meredith fits with one person - Rudy - murdering Meredith.

If Rudy had wanted to make up a story, and Amanda and Raffaele were guilty and helped by holding Meredith down (or whatever), it would be much more logical for Rudy to make up a story where three other people killed Meredith.

I think Amanda and Raffaele are too implicated to their neck by the physical evidence and by their lies as much as Rudy Guede.
Your claim is pointless, because you are the first who is not able to provide a rationale for why a "guilty" Rudy should blame an unknown. Why not just provide the police with a testimony on the people they have already arrested? One possible answer is, the obvious, he doesn't accuse them because he is afraid of something, as always happens in crimes committed by multiple individuals in association, what the person tries to avoid most is the testimony of the others. They don't accuse each other because they don't want to expose themselves to a retailation testimony.

But why make up a story about a solo killer, if he would reasonably have expected at that point that the forensic evidence was going to show that three people did it? Even if Amanda and Raffaele were in on it, Rudy couldn't have known at that point that Amanda and Raffaele had miraculously left absolutely no trace of their presence in the room except for a trace of DNA on a bra hook which Stefanoni would have to make a special trip out to discover weeks later.

Unless Rudy had psychic powers, he made up a story consistent with a single attacker because he knew there had only been one attacker. (Then again the guilter narrative relies on psychic powers at a number of points, since it requires psychic police to instantly figure out the story based on no evidence, and psychic Amanda and Raffaele to know Rudy's modus operandi by supernatural means well enough to fake a break-in consistent with it, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised).

The other problem with your story is that Rudy did in the end finger Amanda and Raffaele, and they did not "retaliate" by fingering Rudy. So your claimed motivation for him making up a story about a solo killer doesn't make much sense anyway.

 

[Mary_H]

You think Rudy was implicated to his neck. You may think there was no reason to hide their involvement because everything against him was proven. He may not have subscribed to your point of view. So from his point of view, it makes sense. I think Amanda and Raffaele are too implicated to their neck by the physical evidence and by their lies as much as Rudy Guede.

Can you enumerate the lies that implicate them?

 

[treehorn]

What one usually does is provide reasons to support an opinion...

You're alive.

Are you going to tell us how you've come to know the 'elasticity' of the human intestine and the displacement of alimentary matter within that organ?

 

[Brooktrout]

It is nice to see Kevin is alive.

Treehorn, is this your cue to start that creepy internet stalking behaviour? How about you do everyone a favour and stick to the topic at hand.

Has anyone seen a reference to how new Rudy's shoes were? Are we talking a few days or a few weeks?

 

[Mary_H]

You're alive.

Are you going to tell us how you've come to know the 'elasticity' of the human intestine and the displacement of alimentary matter within that organ?

I believe Kevin Lowe has cited his sources on that topic many times. Other posters have cited their sources many times, as well, and I'm sure Kevin has learned from those. We're pretty much past that discussion, but you and Kevin could take it up again in private messages.

I'm interested in knowing why you disappear every time halides1 asks you to respond to other posters' questions and requests for citations from you. It almost looks like you don't have any answers for them.