Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

No, generally I skip over yours as they rarely have anything of value or interest in them, merely pointless sniping. However, they do tend to have the advantage of brevity, for which I thank you.

You are accusing me of short worthless posts which merely snipe.
OK, as you are the author of such a charge I shall have to take it seriously.

But if you read RVWBWL's posts with care you will find the reference.
I could post it but as you skip over my posts it would be pointless

.

 

[Justinian2]

Wow Mary H, just WOW.
If there is a case for an unsafe conviction it hasn't been made here.

As to the wider campaign in the English speaking world, from what I can see :a mendacious PR snow job with overtones of racism & xenophobia.

Opinions won't buy you any respect here. What you need are a few reasons or facts. We can't attack you or we get banned for a couple of weeks. We can't counter your opinions with our own opinion or the argument sounds like that of six year old children. For example, just change the word English to Italian in your opinion and you have my opinion. As you can see, that argument will never resolve or even converge towards a resolution.

 

[LondonJohn]

Watching the gang spin in ever decreasing circles claiming that all of Italy conspired to put their darling in jail is enough for me.

Gosh, this post is both insulting and wrong in almost every way possible. Well done.

 

[LondonJohn]

Wow Mary H, just WOW.

Now where have I seen "Wow...just wow" written before.....?

I wonder why some people feel the need to use different names on different sites discussing this case? It's almost as if they don't want their views or posts from one site to be representative of them on another site.....

On a totally unrelated note.... a big welcome back to Pilot Padron! I wonder if he's ever been to Salvador for the carneval?

 

[Withnail1969]

Now where have I seen "Wow...just wow" written before.....?

I wonder why some people feel the need to use different names on different sites discussing this case? It's almost as if they don't want their views or posts from one site to be representative of them on another site.....

On a totally unrelated note.... a big welcome back to Pilot Padron! I wonder if he's ever been to Salvador for the carneval?

I'm sure he has plenty of real quality research and content to add to the site. If only i didn't have him on ignore I'd be able to read it.

Please stay on topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[Kaosium]

Really ?? Oh did they now ???

May I suggest you heed what one of your most esteemed colleagues says below as he tries to insult one of the three pro guilt posters still willing to attempt to discuss evidence here:


(FWIW, that particular pro guilt advocate being slurred has been posting here and other 'evidence based forums' *much* longer than nail's recent (sept) 'johnnie come lately' entrance here.
Additionally,his vast knowledge of the case is often quoted on many other more active, more prominent, and more respected 'evidence based' sites.)

But to your 'argument'
Is it irony, sarcasm, or some other literary device you are attempting to use that may be unfamiliar to your 'evidence based' readers ????

Surely as one who endlessly argues and applies critical thinking and skepticism to this 'evidence based community' your deeply imbedded pre conceived conspiracy blindness would not lead you to make such an absolutely astounding exhibition of *sub* superficial familiarity with the facts of the case....would it ??

Your 'argument's' display of super shallow familiarity with factual evidence completely invalidates the below typically pompous pontification of another of your esteemed colleagues who, although off topic, is attempting to denigrate other forums that he obviously envies (again)


Finally, based on this argument of yours, may I respectfully suggest that in your 'evidence based' submissions here, you might want to avoid using such impolite and uncivil monikers such as your... 'beyond stupid'

I was just trying to come up with an explanation that makes the actions of the Perugian police make sense in any eventuality. If you're happy with them looking 'beyond stupid' for plucking that one knife out of a drawer, waving it before the world as the 'murder weapon,' then finding it didn't match the wounds or the outline left at the site, thus being forced to develop the 'two-knife theory' and then finding no blood on it but claiming an infinitesimal speck of Meredith's DNA was on it--but that they won't prove that by releasing the EDFs--then go ahead and be happy with it.

I suspect at some point they decided on that knife because of Raffaele saying he pricked Meredith with it. Whether it was in evidence already or still in the drawer is rather immaterial.

BTW, it appears you don't realize whatever you say reflects only upon you and your argument rather than the intended recipient.

 

[LondonJohn]

Have I at any stage been the least bit inconsistent about my stance with regard to the opinions of the Perugia judiciary? I don't care what they concluded from the evidence. I care about the evidence and I'll make my own judgment based on it.



The proof that this "paradigm" is nonsense is played out every day in every casino in the world. You can't chain together sequential non-certainties and arrive at certainty, any more than you can break the bank at Monte Carlo by making a succession of bets each of which has negative expectation.



No, not at all.

If you are 60% sure the break-in was staged and 60% sure that the DNA evidence was correctly obtained and 60% sure that the time of death was 23:30 instead of 21:05 then that adds up to 21.6% certainty that they did it, not 180%.

I'd put those odds at more like 0.01%, 20% and 0% myself of course based on a rational examination of the relevant evidence and science. I'm just using possible guilter numbers to illustrate the point.

You cannot chain clues, each of which should rationally be regarded with reasonable doubt, into a structure which supports proof beyond reasonable doubt, any more than you can add a bunch negative numbers together and get a positive result.

I would disagree with this type of statistical analysis. The different pieces of evidence should not be treated in a "serial" fashion as in a chain, but rather in a parallel fashion.

I think the best analogy to return to is Vincent Bugliosi's "rope" analogy. Imagine that each piece of evidence represents a strand in a rope. The thickness of each individual strand is related to the strength of that particular piece of evidence in determining guilt. When all the individual strands (representing pieces of evidence) are bundled together into a rope, it gets tugged to see whether it will hold fast or snap. If it holds fast, then that represents guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, if one piece of evidence was a credible eyewitness who saw the crime being committed, this would constitute a single very thick strand. This one strand on its own would probably be sufficient to make a rope strong enough not to break - i.e. this one piece of evidence is probably sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conversely, if there were 50 pieces of much weaker evidence, then even though the "thickness" of each of these 50 "strands" would be far less, when placed together they might form a strong enough "rope" to convict.

It seems to me that if this analogy is applied to the case against Knox and Sollecito, the court in the first trial believed that there were six fairly thick strands to the rope: a) the partial print on the bathmat belonging to Sollecito and definitely not to Guede; b) the Kercher DNA on the kitchen knife being valid and not the result of contamination; c) the Sollecito DNA on the bra clasp being valid and not the result of secondary transfer or contamination; d) the break-in definitely being the result of staging; e) the footprints in the hallway being directly associated with the crime and/or post-crime clean-up; f) the telephone and computer records, and their relation to the version of events given by Knox and Sollecito. And then there were a number of thinner strands (ear/eye witnesses, confused alibis, post-murder behaviour etc).

The question now is, if one or more of the six major strands (plus some of the thinner strands) are removed from the "rope" in the appeal, will the "rope" still be strong enough not to snap when tested? I believe that a fair few strands will be removed, and the remaining rope will most likely be too thin, and will snap in the appeal court. But we shall see.

 

[platonov]

Mrs Doyle is not alone

Now where have I seen "Wow...just wow" written before.....?

I wonder why some people feel the need to use different names on different sites discussing this case? It's almost as if they don't want their views or posts from one site to be representative of them on another site.....

<snip>

That seems a little paranoid to me but hey ??

Are you going to join Mary H in guessing who I am
We were up to Henry Bigbigging on the last post.

It has even been bruited about that I am one of 'Mignini's minions' but that seems even too outlandish for this thread.

.

 

[odeed]

Yeah, I sure called it. I said the guilters would try this line, and you're the third to have done so.

If they weren't there when Meredith died, they didn't do it.

It gets you nowhere to argue "Yes they were at home throughout the entire period when Meredith could possibly have been murdered, just as they said they were. However they said they spent their time in harmless and totally inconsequential activity A... and I think they really spent their time in harmless and totally inconsequential activity B! This proves they are liars!".

Now personally I haven't seen any evidence of these "lies" about their activity on the night of the murder that can't be perfectly well explained by fallible human memory, nor have I seen any story that makes a lick of sense about why they would tell the claimed "lies" if they were guilty. As far as guilters are concerned there doesn't seem to be any such things as innocent mistakes or irrelevant issues - any contradiction, real or imagined, immediately becomes evidence that Raffaele and Amanda are guilty of murder. However I'll give you a free kick and say they lied their arses off... what now? They still couldn't have murdered Meredith because they weren't there.

I don't care if they were celebrating a Black Mass and reading Mein Kampf all night. If they weren't in the murder room they didn't kill Meredith. Rudy did it all by himself while they were a long way away and they were totally uninvolved.

Not only do you have to distort the facts, claiming the period in question was 9pm to 1am instead of the 12 hours 6pm to 6am from the defence apeal document, but your explanation for the activity from one post was:

You've never stayed up all night talking, or watching movies, or listening to music in the first week of a love affair?

If the biggest "lie" the prosecution can gin up is "They said they spent all night at home doing harmless activity X, but now we can prove once and for all that these scoundrels in fact spent all night at home doing harmless activity Y!" then that's a pretty sad state for them to be in if they want a justified conviction... and that's giving you a free kick by pretending that the logs in any way contradict their statements, which you simply have not shown and which I don't think you are going to be able to show.

...

does not even match Knox testimony for the night:

AK: So I played for a while, and then I know we talked me about this film I wanted
to show him, because it's my favorite film.

LG: What film?

AK: The fabulous world of Amelie. [il mondo favoloso di Amelie]

LG: The fabulous world of Amelie. [correcting her: Il favoloso mondo di Amelie]

AK: Yes, it's beautiful. So I don't know if I said this before, but we said okay,
let's go watch that. So we went back to his house, and...I remember that
umm I watched a little...well, we read a bit, of Harry Potter that I brought
with me because he said he knew some German so I wanted to see if he could
still understand it, and I know ummm I looked on his computer, looked at my
e-mail and ummm we listened to a little music, and then a bit later we watched
the film.

LG: Yes. And did you eat dinner?

AK: Yes. But it was very late when we ate.

LG: Fish?

AK: Yes. Fish and a salad.

LG: And then something happened to the faucet of the sink?

AK: Yes. While Raffaele was washing the dishes, water was coming out from
underneath. He looked down, turned off the water and then looked underneath and the pipe underneath "got loose" [in English, the lawyer translates "broke" (si e rotto), the interpreter translates "slowed down" (si e rallentato)] and water was coming out.

GCM: Can you say what time this was?

AK: Um, around, um, we ate around 9:30 or 10, and then after we had eaten and he was washing the dishes, well, as I said, I don't look at the clock much, but it was around 10. And...he...umm...well, he was washing the dishes and, umm, the water was coming out and he was very "bummed" [English], displeased, he told me he had just had that thing repaired. He was annoyed that it had broken again. So, umm...

LG: Yes. So you talked a bit. Then what did you do?

AK: Then we smoked a joint together. What we did is, we said all right, let's
find some rags, but he didn't have a "mop" [in English] how do you say "mop"?
[The interpreter translates "lo spazzolone", the lawyer "il mocio"] he didn't
have one, and I said don't worry, I have one at home, I'll bring it tomorrow,
the leak is in the kitchen, it wasn't like it smelled bad or anything, we
could just forget about it for the night, and then think about it tomorrow.
So, we went into his room, and I think I, yes, I lay down on his bed, and he went to the desk, and while he was there he rolled the joint, and then we smoked it together.

LG: Did you fall asleep together?

AK: Yes, first we made love, and then we fell asleep.

Nothing in the above testimony suggests that Knox or Sollecito used the computer after 9:30.

Your entire argument is based on ad hominen attacks on "guilters", while at the same time you distort facts, or just make things up which do not fit the facts of the case.

 

[TomM43]

The proof that this "paradigm" is nonsense is played out every day in every casino in the world. You can't chain together sequential non-certainties and arrive at certainty, any more than you can break the bank at Monte Carlo by making a succession of bets each of which has negative expectation.

If you are 60% sure the break-in was staged and 60% sure that the DNA evidence was correctly obtained and 60% sure that the time of death was 23:30 instead of 21:05 then that adds up to 21.6% certainty that they did it, not 180%.

I'd put those odds at more like 0.01%, 20% and 0% myself of course based on a rational examination of the relevant evidence and science. I'm just using possible guilter numbers to illustrate the point.

You cannot chain clues, each of which should rationally be regarded with reasonable doubt, into a structure which supports proof beyond reasonable doubt, any more than you can add a bunch negative numbers together and get a positive result.

Evidence in a criminal trial is not a chain; it is more like a rope or a cable which continues to function even when some of the individual strands are broken.

By your chain analogy, if there were 100 pieces of evidence that you were 99% sure about, certainty of guilt approaches zero.

I don't know why you say jurors must find each individual piece of evidence supporting guilt to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not what jurors are told to do in America.

Here is what jurors are instructed on reasonable doubt in California:

A defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent. This
presumption requires that the People prove a defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Whenever I tell you the People must
prove something, I mean they must prove it beyond a reasonable
doubt [unless I specifically tell you otherwise].

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an
abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not
eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to
some possible or imaginary doubt.

In deciding whether the People have proved their case beyond a
reasonable doubt, you must impartially compare and consider all
the evidence that was received throughout the entire trial. Unless
the evidence proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, (he/she/they) (is/are) entitled to an acquittal and you must
find (him/her/them) not guilty.

This is what they are instructed about weighing credibility; you can see that the term "reasonable doubt" does not appear:

You alone, must judge the credibility or believability of the
witnesses. In deciding whether testimony is true and accurate, use
your common sense and experience. You must judge the testimony
of each witness by the same standards, setting aside any bias or
prejudice you may have. You may believe all, part, or none of any
witness’s testimony. Consider the testimony of each witness and
decide how much of it you believe.
In evaluating a witness’s testimony, you may consider anything
that reasonably tends to prove or disprove the truth or accuracy of
that testimony. Among the factors that you may consider are:
• How well could the witness see, hear, or otherwise perceive
the things about which the witness testified?
• How well was the witness able to remember and describe
what happened?
• What was the witness’s behavior while testifying?
• Did the witness understand the questions and answer them
directly?
• Was the witness’s testimony influenced by a factor such as
bias or prejudice, a personal relationship with someone
involved in the case, or a personal interest in how the case
is decided?
• What was the witness’s attitude about the case or about
testifying?
• Did the witness make a statement in the past that is
consistent or inconsistent with his or her testimony?
• How reasonable is the testimony when you consider all the
other evidence in the case?
• [Did other evidence prove or disprove any fact about which
the witness testified?]
• [Did the witness admit to being untruthful?]
• [What is the witness’s character for truthfulness?]
• [Has the witness been convicted of a felony?]
• [Has the witness engaged in [other] conduct that reflects on
his or her believability?]
• [Was the witness promised immunity or leniency in
exchange for his or her testimony?]
Do not automatically reject testimony just because of
inconsistencies or conflicts. Consider whether the differences are
important or not. People sometimes honestly forget things or make
mistakes about what they remember. Also, two people may witness
the same event yet see or hear it differently.
[If the evidence establishes that a witness’s character for
truthfulness has not been discussed among the people who know
him or her, you may conclude from the lack of discussion that the
witness’s character for truthfulness is good.]
[If you do not believe a witness’s testimony that he or she no
longer remembers something, that testimony is inconsistent with
the witness’s earlier statement on that subject.]
[If you decide that a witness deliberately lied about something
significant in this case, you should consider not believing anything
that witness says. Or, if you think the witness lied about some
things, but told the truth about others, you may simply accept the
part that you think is true and ignore the rest.]

 

[Kaosium]

Evidence in a criminal trial is not a chain; it is more like a rope or a cable which continues to function even when some of the individual strands are broken.

By your chain analogy, if there were 100 pieces of evidence that you were 99% sure about, certainty of guilt approaches zero.

I don't know why you say jurors must find each individual piece of evidence supporting guilt to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not what jurors are told to do in America.

Here is what jurors are instructed on reasonable doubt in California:

A defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent. This
presumption requires that the People prove a defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Whenever I tell you the People must
prove something, I mean they must prove it beyond a reasonable
doubt [unless I specifically tell you otherwise].

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an
abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not
eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to
some possible or imaginary doubt.

In deciding whether the People have proved their case beyond a
reasonable doubt, you must impartially compare and consider all
the evidence that was received throughout the entire trial. Unless
the evidence proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, (he/she/they) (is/are) entitled to an acquittal and you must
find (him/her/them) not guilty.

This is what they are instructed about weighing credibility; you can see that the term "reasonable doubt" does not appear:

You alone, must judge the credibility or believability of the
witnesses. In deciding whether testimony is true and accurate, use
your common sense and experience. You must judge the testimony
of each witness by the same standards, setting aside any bias or
prejudice you may have. You may believe all, part, or none of any
witness’s testimony. Consider the testimony of each witness and
decide how much of it you believe.
In evaluating a witness’s testimony, you may consider anything
that reasonably tends to prove or disprove the truth or accuracy of
that testimony. Among the factors that you may consider are:
• How well could the witness see, hear, or otherwise perceive
the things about which the witness testified?
• How well was the witness able to remember and describe
what happened?
• What was the witness’s behavior while testifying?
• Did the witness understand the questions and answer them
directly?
• Was the witness’s testimony influenced by a factor such as
bias or prejudice, a personal relationship with someone
involved in the case, or a personal interest in how the case
is decided?
• What was the witness’s attitude about the case or about
testifying?
• Did the witness make a statement in the past that is
consistent or inconsistent with his or her testimony?
• How reasonable is the testimony when you consider all the
other evidence in the case?
• [Did other evidence prove or disprove any fact about which
the witness testified?]
• [Did the witness admit to being untruthful?]
• [What is the witness’s character for truthfulness?]
• [Has the witness been convicted of a felony?]
• [Has the witness engaged in [other] conduct that reflects on
his or her believability?]
• [Was the witness promised immunity or leniency in
exchange for his or her testimony?]
Do not automatically reject testimony just because of
inconsistencies or conflicts. Consider whether the differences are
important or not. People sometimes honestly forget things or make
mistakes about what they remember. Also, two people may witness
the same event yet see or hear it differently.
[If the evidence establishes that a witness’s character for
truthfulness has not been discussed among the people who know
him or her, you may conclude from the lack of discussion that the
witness’s character for truthfulness is good.]
[If you do not believe a witness’s testimony that he or she no
longer remembers something, that testimony is inconsistent with
the witness’s earlier statement on that subject.]
[If you decide that a witness deliberately lied about something
significant in this case, you should consider not believing anything
that witness says. Or, if you think the witness lied about some
things, but told the truth about others, you may simply accept the
part that you think is true and ignore the rest.]

I was wondering if you could post the list of 'lies' Amanda and Raffaele are accused of telling. I keep hearing about them but the ones I've seen posted by those thinking them to be evidence of guilt always seem to be inconsequential or a response to lies told to them. I've never seen an actual list so I could judge them as a whole.

 

[platonov]

Opinions won't buy you any respect here. What you need are a few reasons or facts. We can't attack you or we get banned for a couple of weeks. We can't counter your opinions with our own opinion or the argument sounds like that of six year old children. For example, just change the word English to Italian in your opinion and you have my opinion. As you can see, that argument will never resolve or even converge towards a resolution.

I can certainly agree with the opening 2 remarks; that's the point I and others keep trying to get across - idle speculation or musings on conspiracies is useless especially when it doesn't accord with the facts or timelines as accepted by both the defence and the court.

On the English to Italian thing ,you seem to be saying that the FOAkers ran a similar campaign in Italian.
I wasn't aware that was the case - in fact I very much doubt it.
That kind of nonsense wouldn't fly in the Italian press as the better informed local journos & public would laugh it off - just as many of us in the English speaking world do.
In fact it would just highlight the weakness of the 'innocence' arguments, as indeed it does here.

.

 

[TomM43]

I was wondering if you could post the list of 'lies' Amanda and Raffaele are accused of telling. I keep hearing about them but the ones I've seen posted by those thinking them to be evidence of guilt always seem to be inconsequential or a response to lies told to them. I've never seen an actual list so I could judge them as a whole.

I could but I won't since it has little to do with the point of my post.

 

[Kaosium]

Good theory but it falls foul the retrocausality rule that came up earlier.

Cause must precede effect.

Its fine for Star Trek but wont fly in in this case and this forum

.

At what point do you think the police/prosecution made the embarrassing error of 'determining' that knife was the 'murder weapon' then? I was attempting to offer an explanation that didn't make them look beyond stupid. My guess is they had another reason for deciding so early that knife was the 'murder weapon'--what is yours?

 

[Kermit]

It's a minor point at any rate, I'm just speculating how they might have chosen that one (the Double DNA knife) which turned out to be so embarrassing to them .... If by some unlikely transfer or contamination it actually bore Meredith's DNA...it still couldn't have been used by Amanda or Raffaele in that room, as the absence of any other sign of them speaks volumes. Unlike logic, in this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

.
I think that most agree that the lining up of all the peaks on the Meredith's DNA from the knife with the baseline sample (halides is going to jump on me for not using the right terminology) is not a statistical fluke, but that that is indeed Meredith's DNA profile. Now, quite another thing is if the defence wishes to argue contamination.

As regards the absence of prints, etc. for Amanda and Raffaele, in a prior discussion here or on PMF or on any other site, I think there have been many examples given of murders where the suspects/convicts didn't leave substantial physical evidence of their presence.

That would require evidence of Raffaele and Amanda at the scene, and the handful of picograms of whatever on the knife and clasp certainly doesn't qualify as anything but a desperate attempt to fool credulous people.

.
According to you, what is the minimum level of DNA picograms required to convict? If you were shown other murder cases where convictions were obtained with even lower levels, would you suggest that those convictions were the result of desperate attempts to fool people?

If there's a break-in and a girl killed, it takes a special kind of mind to come to the conclusion it had to be staged and when the 'evidence' of that is ridiculous assumptions like a burglar couldn't break in to a second story building they've failed in their quest to prove the counter-intuitive.

.
The burglars who broke into the cottage in January 2008 proved that a Spiderman break-in through Filomena's window is counter-intuitive.

I'm talking about the initial (satanic) 'theory' that Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick were arrested under. The one broadcast to the press.

.
If that was or if that wasn't satanic, it doesn't matter now. The case argued in court two years later and which has ended in Amanda and Raffaele being convicted together with Rudy for Meredith's murder didn't have anything to do with satanism but rather DNA evidence, witnesses, suspects' statements, etc.
.

No, she didn't. She had the screws put to her for hours and finally succumbed to suggestion .... At any rate the idea that a professional police force moves on the 'repressed memory' of a traumatized girl heavily interrogated and lied to regarding 'evidence' of Patrick at the scene and her boyfriend claiming she wasn't with him is ludicrous.

.
- she was questioned on the night of 5 November for only a couple of hours before admitting to being at the scene of the crime

- was Amanda any more traumatised than Meredith's friends? Should she have been given special treatment before 5 November compared to other witnesses? Amanda seems perhaps tired in her email home, but she attended classes on Monday, she was shopping with Raffaele, just moments before entering her 5 November questioning she was speaking normally to Filomena about housing arrangements .... when Raffaele stopped giving her an alibi (you seem to be the last person who refuses to admit that), should the police have given her a special treatment and only asked her questions which were easy?

 

[Withnail1969]

The burglars who broke into the cottage in January 2008 proved that a Spiderman break-in through Filomena's window is counter-intuitive.

I don't recall reading their thesis on the subject.

 

[Kaosium]

I could but I won't since it has little to do with the point of my post.

Your post missed his point anyway, let's try to salvage it because it brings up some other interesting points. However to do that we need a list of these 'lies.' I recall it was considered important by someone that they said they slept in until nine or so, but there was a phone call received and a music file played before that time. That's one 'lie' so far, I was just hoping you might know of more so they could be evaluated.

 

[christianahannah]

Well, he had a bunch of knives a whole lot more useful for cutting people than chopping onions, those would have been the obvious ones to check. However when did they get the forensics back? When did they 'know' Meredith's DNA was 'on' that knife? It's a minor point at any rate, I'm just speculating how they might have chosen that one which turned out to be so embarrassing to them.

Raffaele did have a bunch of knives (I don't know the exact count) three of which are written about in the motivations. There may be more mentioned, if so, please add.

I think one knife was taken from Raffaele at the Questura very early on November 6, and the other two were taken from his flat on the morning November 6 (in the kitchen and in his bedroom).

The motivations states the times of tests run on page 181:

On November 12, laboratory testing commenced on the material acquired up to then; on November 22 a second phase of laboratory operations began, and continued on November 27. Another start was made on December 10, 2007, and continued on December 14, 2007.

Raffaele writes about the results of the knife taken from his kitchen on November 16 so part of the test results were back by that date. I would assume that the other two knives were also tested during this first time but I am not sure.

There was another testing of items started on December 21, 2007 (after the December 18 cottage search).

 

[HumanityBlues]

.
If that was or if that wasn't satanic, it doesn't matter now. The case argued in court two years later and which has ended in Amanda and Raffaele being convicted together with Rudy for Meredith's murder didn't have anything to do with satanism but rather DNA evidence, witnesses, suspects' statements, etc.

It would certainly, if true, shed light on the idiotic deductions and theories of the prosecution. Under your supposition, we would assume that moronic fantasies of prosecutors are irrelevant so long as prosecutors drop these lame theories at a later date. In essence, turning from idiots to geniuses over night, with us never questioning their credibility thereafter.

 

[platonov]

At what point do you think the police/prosecution made the embarrassing error of 'determining' that knife was the 'murder weapon' then? I was attempting to offer an explanation that didn't make them look beyond stupid. My guess is they had another reason for deciding so early that knife was the 'murder weapon'--what is yours?

How is retrocausality not 'beyond stupid' - had RS mentioned the Knife before the cops announced it had been tested & the result it would have been worse for him - in fact fatal.

Seriously I think you need to get a better handle on the prosecution case & timelines involved and what the court actually accepted, if you are to grasp the problem facing the defence teams of AK & RS.

Its not as much fun as conspiracy theories but its a rewarding enterprise if you are to find a loophole in the case.

Actually that's probably not true - if you do that the futility of dreaming about seeing AK freed becomes apparent.
Unless Sollecito Snr's money can swing it - but it seems too late for that and it might still leave AK in the frame.

.