Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

Yes. The problem area was the corridor and the bathroom.

OK, this picture then?

Here's my point: You can barely see Rudy's traces, and of course not the invisible stains lit up with luminol, how did they manage to clean up everything else without disturbing the ones they could not see? You take a mop soaked with bleach and swish it around that little area for a minute or two and you're done. However to selectively miss all the stuff they couldn't or could barely see is not only extremely time consuming it's damn near impossible. Also, assuming they knew about the stains meaning they might have remembered they could have made some, why would they want to miss those stains?

Yes, but they arrived too quickly after the call, in 2 minutes, and immediately started to talk about the phones.

Well, I think by the time you've alerted your parents, siblings and roommates there's something wrong, and called the cops, I gotta believe if you're this brazen murderess and diabolical slaveboy they must have been ready to deal with the cops--who they could have just sent on their way by saying 'thanks for the phones.' Then--when they all crossed their fingers and said 'crosspatch' three times--they could deal with the Carabinieri when they were really truly ready.

Massei p105:
"The witness testimony of Monica Napoleoni proceeded in the hearing on February 28, 2009.
...
To a related question put forward by the defence of Raffaele Sollecito, she confirmed the information content of November 5 in relation to which, upon arrival at the house in Via della Pergola on November 2, Raffaele Sollecito had told her: "My girlfriend has now remembered and told me that when she went into the bathroom this morning by herself there were feces in the toilet and that when we returned to the house it was no longer there‛ (page 22, hearing of February 28, 2009)."

She told it to Napoleoni through Raffaele obviously after the discovery of the murder.
As it turned out Raffaele even lied about it for some reason.
[/QUOTE]

OK, it was her e-mail I was thinking of, however where are you getting a 'lie' out of this? Who's supposedly lying about what and why? All this says is Raffaele told Napoleoni on the second that Amanda had told her about the dump in the toilet. I vaguely recall some discussion of this elsewhere, but I don't recall it amounting to anything, where's the great globs of guilt in this?

Well, the cleanup was never directed to destroy Rudy's traces.
It was directed to make Amanda's cockamamie story at least minimally credible about her shower and not suspecting anything, etc.

Why bother with all that when you're planning to leave for the next day anyway? Why does she need a convoluted cockamamie story at all? She doesn't have to take a shower there, she just did. Why not just go with 'I came home, the door was open, I saw blood immediately and freaked!' Some would find that more believable, whereas I doubt anyone would make up anything that complicated to remember.

You could equally ask even in the full innocence version why she left Rudy's souvenir in the toilet in the first place.

Simple, it was evidence about what concerned her, that which they'd go back to investigate, why would she destroy that evidence?

As for naming Patrick, she evidently could not name Rudy. Naming specifically Patrick is best explained through her knowledge of what Raffaele knows about it, I think, as I have written above.

I got the impression you were arguing that Amanda took her cues from the police assuming they were getting it from Raffaele and tried to 'play along?'

Isn't it weird, 53 hours with police for Amanda a couple rounds of interviews for Raffaele, arrested, paraded through town, put in front of a judge without lawyers, and not once did Rudy's name ever come up? That's amazing solidarity for those who barely knew each other, all of six days and an introduction amongst all three.

Yes, and the formation they are placed in.

Who would think to place them there if they were actually staging a break-in for the first time and not going through a window?

Not much figuring out took place.
The window was broken, not necessarily with a rock, and a rock was thrown into the room through the door.
It is much more silent and less visible than to throw a rock from outside.

Well, from the outside escape is easy through those trees, otherwise they're trapped inside for a little bit.

However, I assume you've seen this, how is it in your scenario that there's glass embedded on the outside of the inside shutter, but none in the inside of the outside shutter? That's an awful lot of glass to be bouncing back with such velocity, Raffaele must have really winged that rock...yet it left no fresh marks on the inside of that outside shutter, while the outside of the inside shutter has a fresh wound?

 

[Justinian2]

Just 200 miles as the crow flies from Perugia:

People of Serbia, both young and old, still carry the scars of war. During the two World Wars, scores of Serbians lost their lives. In WWI, 58% of the male population was lost; in WWII, 1/10th the population of the country had been lost, either in combat, reprisals or in concentration camps. Following the death of Tito, dissatisfaction with federalism increased, starting the brutal civil war that tore Yugoslavia apart. NATO bombings seemed unjustified and directly affected the entire population. Widespread relocation occurred, including a mass exodus of Serbs out of the Croatian region. Through conversations with Serbian teachers and other locals, I have heard heart wrenching stories of families and loved ones suddenly being told to leave Croatia (as well as Bosnia and other regions), and have not been able to return or meet family members left behind. Serbians, although aware of problems still facing the country (15 years of sanctions crippled a once-strong economy) remain fairly positive and look forward to the renewal of their beloved country.

My point is: This area is ripe for smoldering anger against the west - and everywhere else, for that matter. With this much raw emotion in their near past, it is small wonder that logic is trumped.

Just trying to figure out why the people against Amanda (and presumably the USA) seem to think with emotion rather than logic or fact.

If my male ancestors had been killed early in their lives, I might would be biased too. (If they were killed too early, I wouldn't even be here)

Re: What logically effects Guilter thinking, and thus the conviction of Amanda, other than logic.

 

[Diocletus]

I just read an article that Comodi will be doing the cross examination. I'm sure she is a genius when it comes to science and will be a force to be reckoned with.

Link to article.

Does anyone else find it peculiar that lightweight Comodi is doing the cross for the prosecution's last stand? It's like they've already conceded defeat.

I think Comodi is the one in charge of the DNA evidence. Mignini in his CNN interview has already "washed his hands" of any responsibility for DNA by claiming that he brought Comodi in specifically for this purpose because Mignini doesn't understand DNA. It'll be the cross-examination of her life. I don't think she has a prayer of undermining C&V enough to have their recommendations rejected. Her strategy would have to be to put on Stefanoni to rebut C&V, but I'm not sure if this is in the cards.

 

[LondonJohn]

Phantomwolf wrote:



Well, as long as Raffaele is exercising his right to silence, basicallly nothing.

The absolute minimum is two independent, coherent and detailed account of what they were doing that night. Without many "don't remember"-s.

Huh???? You seem to be implying here that it's incumbent upon those accused to prove their innocence in order to be acquitted. You're aware that the prosecution (well, technically the court in the case of Italian criminal justice) has to prove guilt beyond any doubt based in reason, in order to reach a guilty verdict?

So are you still suggesting that the prosecution/court has fulfilled that burden of proof in the case of Knox and/or Sollecito? And are you seriously suggesting that Sollecito exercising his right to silence is the overarching factor in your belief in his guilt beyond any doubt based in reason?? I honestly don't think that you understand the asymmetry involved in a criminal trial.

 

[RWVBWL]

"Semen is the signature of the murderer on the pillow"

Hello everyone,
If you had a Sister, Mother, Wife or Daughter who was brutally stabbed to her death and raped, with a possible semen stain left, would you want it tested?

I would, and in the tragic case we discuss here, I still do.
For I just want the truth revealed and the guilty person(s) punished as harshly as possible and any wrongfully convicted persons, if so, to be freed immediatley.

It seems that Raffalele Sollecito's Father wants this stain tested also, for he believes that
"Semen is the signature of the murderer on the pillow"

http://translate.google.com/transla...irma-dell%E2%80%99omicida%E2%80%9D-32059.html

I had bet an old JREF member named Fulcanelli,
before he was permanetly banned from posting here, a case of beer that this stain was indeed semen and it came from Rudy Guede, against whom all evidence, IMHO, points to as Miss Kercher's murderer. It has been said that Fulcanelli is also known as Michael, the founder and site admin of the original PMF website. Today, with a few hours to spare, I decided to do a little reading on his website. As I would probably be banned from PMF in an instant, allow me, for the sake of discussion here on JREF, to share a recent post from Michael:

I really don't see the gripe, I never have. I mean, so what if the sample on the pillow turns out to be semen AND is Rudy Guede's, what does that show? That he was there and he sexually assaulted the victim? His trials have established that already and nobody aside from Guede and his defence has ever claimed anything other to be the case. So, all it would do is further prove what we know already, something that is not in dispute. That's at best. At worst, it could be Raffaele's semen or not semen at all but something like vaseline or make-up (which is the most likely), neither of which would benefit the defence in any way. So, what's their big fuss? What do they imagine it could/would prove?

The only reason I can see for testing it is to add delays to the appeal and maybe to have something to whinge about to the High Court in the third degree if the testing is refused. Delays for delay's sake help the accused. There is a time deadline on the process and if that is exceeded they can be acquitted. It also wears down the prosecution. And time is always the defendant's ally, since in the course of time any new evidence might emerge that can be hurled at the case, whereas the prosecution is not permitted to admit new evidence. Of course, that isn't the perspective of those sitting in jail, but it certainly is of their lawyers. In short, it's little more then a legal tactic and in Sollecito Sr's case, a straw to clutch on to.

What Michael fails to understand in his post above is that there are 2 others convicted in this brutal murder and rape. If that is indeed a semen stain belonging to Rudy Guede, what were these 2 doing while Rudy was bringing himself to climax? Where is the evidence of Raffaele or Amanda's presence and participation that night? Show me and explain to me the dynamics of their movement that night if they were indeed there and paricipated in Miss Kercher's horrible death.You're in England, right Michael? Did you see the Lifetime movie scene, before it was edited out, of the recreation of the tragicially chilling 3-way assault on Meredith? There is no way in heaven that Amanda and Raffaele supposedly could participate in that horrible assuault and then afterwards remember to wipe down each and every 1 of the places where they left a fingerprint, a handprint, a hair, and not get a drop of blood on there own clothing. And then afterwards, they decided to simply leave what many on the Colpevolisti side believe to be that huuuge clue pointing to Raffaele Sollecito's guilt: that bloody footprint on Meredith and Amanda's bathroom mat. Right...

Wasn't Amanda, with the clean-up not even finished, even wearing a white skirt that next morning when they came back to the scene of Merdith Kercher's murder before she and Raff were to go on that day trip to Gubbio?

I have 3 sisters. And I have dated a few lovely women in my life.
I would want, no need to know the truth about who left his semen between the legs of a woman I loved or was related to if she were brutally stabbed to her death and raped.

Not because "The only reason I can see for testing it is to add delays to the appeal",
but because I need to know the truth of what really happened that night...

It is the truth that will set Raffaele and Amanda free.

Have a nice rest of the day everyone,
Peace, RW

PS-I wonder, if that stain is ever tested,
who was right, the shark watcher or IIUC, the bird counter?
Betcha another case of beer, Fulcanelli, that the stain is not from Raffaele Sollecito...

 

[LondonJohn]

It's entirely irrational, but it may stem from a need to have closure to the ordeal, thus it may be simpler to believe that those who were caught were guilty, the courts just mishandled it, than to think the murderer got away clean and may never be caught.

Which causes me to wonder, being as I generally don't follow court cases, in how many of these other instances you mentioned, was it the case that the real murderer had already been caught and prosecuted? That's the curious thing about this case, going from the evidence presented and even throwing out the DNA evidence (which would have been tough to contaminate in the lab as they had to go to his place and get his DNA off his toothbrush or somesuch to match what they found at the scene) Rudy Guede comes off as guilty as charged. He can't even deny being there when it happened, and he was never interviewed without a lawyer in the backroom of the police station with the cameras off to make anyone doubt his statements to that effect, in fact he even said so to a friend he didn't know was surreptitiously bird-dogging him for the police.

In a very real sense there were two 'investigations' of the death of Meredith Kercher, one done by 'instinct' which led to Raffaele and Amanda being arrested along with Patrick, and another one based off the evidence collected at the scene, which after a tip from one of his friends, led to Guede's arrest. The three have nothing in common outside that Rudy hung around in their neighborhood sometimes, and no evidence outside an introduction to Amanda that they ever interacted. Considering the two very different ways the investigations were conducted, there's no reason to believe one must necessarily be connected to the other, and quite a good chance the ones following the evidence got it correct.

This is one of the important factors in this particular case. In many murder trials where there is only weak circumstantial evidence, a significant factor can often be the simple question: "If the defendant didn't murder the victim, then who did?" A prime example of this would be the Scott Peterson case. In reality, there was very little highly-incriminating evidence against him - it was a fairly weak circumstantial case in terms of the actual evidence and testimony. But the crucial factor in that case - given that it was clear that Laci Peterson had been murdered - was that there was no plausible other murderer than Scott Peterson. Laci was not a drug user or a prostitute, nor did she have a secret double life or secret admirers. And the chance of a random intruder abducting, murdering and dumping her was minute compared to the probability of Scoot Peterson being the culprit. This was undoubtedly a very important factor in the whole corpus of evidence, which - when viewed alongside the circumstantial evidence pointing towards Scott Petersen - made a guilty verdict correct and proper.

However, as you've pointed out, we already have not only an entirely plausible assailant in Rudy Guede, we actually have an assailant whose presence at the crime scene is entirely provable, and whose behaviour after the crime is entirely inconsistent with anything other than culpability. That's why so many of the pro-guilt crowd hang onto the misguided and incorrect mantra that this crime could only have been carried out by numerous assailants working in concert*. The plain fact is that this crime could be - and in fact was - carried out by one athletic young man working alone and carrying a threatening knife (which allowed him to control the victim up to the point of the stabbings). That man was Rudy Guede.


* And they continue to misrepresent and misinterpret the Italian Supreme Court ruling in Guede's case. The Supreme Court does not address findings of fact - it merely ensures that the law has been correctly followed and applied. And, in any case, different courts can come to entirely different findings of fact in their judgements: one need only look at the significantly different ToD findings in Massei's court versus Guede's courts to see absolute evidence of this. The pro-guilt crowd never talk about that though - I wonder why not?

 

[snook1]

I never quite understood what would change if there was Guede's semen on the pillow. It would not change his jail time, would it? It would not work in favour of Raffaele or Amanda either, correct?

 

[Onofarar]

I hadn't heard about the Church frowning on taking up the civil part. Why is that?

C'mon were you sleeping in Sunday School?
"Turn the other cheek" "forgive our debts (trespasses) as we forgive our debtors (trespassers)" Thats two I could list a dozen.

 

[Onofarar]

I just read an article that Comodi will be doing the cross examination. I'm sure she is a genius when it comes to science and will be a force to be reckoned with.

Link to article.

Does anyone else find it peculiar that lightweight Comodi is doing the cross for the prosecution's last stand? It's like they've already conceded defeat.

I am not surprised at all. Didn't she handle all of the DNA evidence on direct and the cross on the defense DNA experts? Plus, she and Steffi were as thick as thieves in the courtroom on Monday?

She is very good at trying to trip up people on cross - remember her little exchange with Amanda about the first phone call from Amanda to her Mom. She asked about a call at Noon - AK could not remember such a call because there wasn't one - it was at 12:47. Then she makes it seem ominous (do I need to credit that I am using The Machine's favorite noun/adjective?) that the call was made "before anything happened" was in the middle of the night in Seattle when it was actually nearly 5 AM - early but not too early especially for a high school English teacher who probably has to be at her school no later than 7 AM or 7:15AM (on days my wife walks on our treadmill she is up at 6:00 AM and does not have to be to work until 8:30) .

 

[LondonJohn]

I never quite understood what would change if there was Guede's semen on the pillow. It would not change his jail time, would it? It would not work in favour of Raffaele or Amanda either, correct?

If the semen had been tested and was found to be Guede's, it would almost certainly have resulted in him receiving a full life sentence (reduced to 30 years owing to his fast-track process). But that would have been if this had all happened before Guede's trial process started - which, of course, it should have done. You're correct to say that it makes scant difference now if it turns out to be Guede's semen. It would very marginally work in favour of Knox and Sollecito, in my view, because it would tend to support a lone attacker versus a group attack dynamic.

But it's also indicative of the terrible quality of the investigative work done in this case. It truly beggars belief that a stain on a pillow that was underneath the victim - and which apparently indicates as semen on a crimescope analysis - has not been tested, let alone matched to anyone. Of course it might be Vaseline or saliva, but it might very well have been important evidence in this case. Of course, if it were Sollecito's semen, this alone would probably be enough to prove Sollecito's guilt. But whatever that stain is, it's utterly incompetent of the police not to have figured out exactly what it was, and, if it was semen, whose it was.

If Mr Kercher really wants proper justice, he should - in my view - be asking a very large number of questions of the police and prosecutors, based upon why their investigation and prosecution were so incompetent and error-ridden. When Mr Kercher finally realises that Guede alone killed his daughter, he will have every right to wonder why the killer might be back on the streets by 2020 - particularly if the pillow stain turned out to be his semen, which - if used as evidence in his trials - could have ensured that he stayed in prison for a very long time.

 

[LondonJohn]

I am not surprised at all. Didn't she handle all of the DNA evidence on direct and the cross on the defense DNA experts? Plus, she and Steffi were as thick as thieves in the courtroom on Monday?

She is very good at trying to trip up people on cross - remember her little exchange with Amanda about the first phone call from Amanda to her Mom. She asked about a call at Noon - AK could not remember such a call because there wasn't one - it was at 12:47. Then she makes it seem ominous (do I need to credit that I am using The Machine's favorite noun/adjective?) that the call was made "before anything happened" was in the middle of the night in Seattle when it was actually nearly 5 AM - early but not too early especially for a high school English teacher who probably has to be at her school no later than 7 AM or 7:15AM (on days my wife walks on our treadmill she is up at 6:00 AM and does not have to be to work until 8:30) .

Personally, I don't see how Comodi can cross-examine Conti/Vecchiotti in any way that is beneficial to the prosecution. I cannot see how their DNA report is able to be rebutted in any meaningful fashion, but we shall see on Saturday I guess...

 

[Rolfe]

I meant to ask about this before. There's a possible/probable semen stain at the scene of a violent rape and murder, and it hasn't been tested?

How come? How come anyone has to ask for something like this to be done? Why wasn't it done as routine? Or even as mega-top priority?

Rolfe.

 

[Diocletus]

She is very good at trying to trip up people on cross - remember her little exchange with Amanda about the first phone call from Amanda to her Mom. She asked about a call at Noon - AK could not remember such a call because there wasn't one - it was at 12:47. Then she makes it seem ominous (do I need to credit that I am using The Machine's favorite noun/adjective?) that the call was made "before anything happened" was in the middle of the night in Seattle when it was actually nearly 5 AM - early but not too early especially for a high school English teacher who probably has to be at her school no later than 7 AM or 7:15AM (on days my wife walks on our treadmill she is up at 6:00 AM and does not have to be to work until 8:30) .

Tripping up Amanda Knox with a 10 cent lawyers' trick is one thing, but actually beating up on a court-saavy expert witness is something different. I do expect that Comodi will be able to score a few points by pointing out specific details that the experts messed up, but this won't be enough to significantly undermine the experts' overall opinion. She'd better be careful, too, because I have a feeling that Hellmann will not be in the mood for nonsense.

 

[Diocletus]

I meant to ask about this before. There's a possible/probable semen stain at the scene of a violent rape and murder, and it hasn't been tested?

How come? How come anyone has to ask for something like this to be done? Why wasn't it done as routine? Or even as mega-top priority?

Rolfe.

You must be thinking of the international standards. Remember, this is Italy. They have their own standards for how to conduct investigations.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I meant to ask about this before. There's a possible/probable semen stain at the scene of a violent rape and murder, and it hasn't been tested?

How come? How come anyone has to ask for something like this to be done? Why wasn't it done as routine? Or even as mega-top priority?

Rolfe.

This is a great question that was asked about a million times in previous discussions. It's the perfect opportunity for any guilt-arguer to show that they might actually be looking at the case objectively to point out how egregious this is.

Look, at a crime scene, sometimes certain things are not going to be tested. We all get that. But to not test this? It makes no sense. I remember there was some argument that Stefanoni couldn't test it because she was trying to preserve something else---which quite frankly doesn't make any sense being that they still have the ability to test it to this day.

This goes back a long way in these threads where Fulcanelli was defiantly telling everyone it was lip balm. He was also conjecturing that it's the defense's job to test the stain, not the actual investigators (no I am not joking). I and others asked how he could know if they didn't test it, and I believe it devolved into accusations that we were only interested in the semen stain because we hate the victim so much and want to attack her honor.

 

[Rolfe]

But there has to be some reason! When they went back to get the bra clasp, you postulate because the previous evidence they had incriminating Sollecito had evaporated, why wouldn't they test the stain in the hope it was attributable to him?

Rolfe.

 

[Antony]

Of course, if it were Sollecito's semen, this alone would probably be enough to prove Sollecito's guilt.

... and we're supposed to believe that they eschewed testing of this item even on December 17, and instead staged the weird drama surrounding the collection of the bra-clasp.

There are only 2 possibilities:

• the stain really was never tested, even though they were specifically looking for evidence against Raff. If this is the case, then it can only be because they already knew that he wasn't involved, and latched onto the bra-clasp because the results could more easily be rigged;
• the stain had already been tested and the investigators decided for their own reasons to keep the result secret.

In the second case, the motives for doing so are a bit more difficult to read, especially as we can't be sure what the stain was. If it was something innocuous like Vaseline, then there could be no reason for concealing the outcome. If it is Guede's semen, then the investigators might be concealing it because they really are protecting him (as has been suggested), or it could be because they reasoned that a scenario where Guede climaxes during or after the assault is more difficult to work into a 3-way narrative involving Amanda and Raff.

Either way, combined with the bra-clasp histrionics, it's hard to escape the conclusion that the investigators were by Dec 17 engaged in a deliberate strategy to manipulate the evidence.

 

[Kaosium]

This is one of the important factors in this particular case. In many murder trials where there is only weak circumstantial evidence, a significant factor can often be the simple question: "If the defendant didn't murder the victim, then who did?" A prime example of this would be the Scott Peterson case. In reality, there was very little highly-incriminating evidence against him - it was a fairly weak circumstantial case in terms of the actual evidence and testimony. But the crucial factor in that case - given that it was clear that Laci Peterson had been murdered - was that there was no plausible other murderer than Scott Peterson. Laci was not a drug user or a prostitute, nor did she have a secret double life or secret admirers. And the chance of a random intruder abducting, murdering and dumping her was minute compared to the probability of Scott Peterson being the culprit. This was undoubtedly a very important factor in the whole corpus of evidence, which - when viewed alongside the circumstantial evidence pointing towards Scott Petersen - made a guilty verdict correct and proper.

I didn't follow it, but I gathered something like that occurred, they didn't have the physical evidence because they didn't know for sure where the crime scene was? Here they had the crime scene, a veritable fishbowl of a small enclosed room where three people were supposedly a-murdering away--yet absolutely no evidence of two of them being there. That means something to me as well, it's a 'contradiction' that must be 'hypothesized' through with more than the usual 'possible, indeed probable' nonsense.

However, as you've pointed out, we already have not only an entirely plausible assailant in Rudy Guede, we actually have an assailant whose presence at the crime scene is entirely provable, and whose behaviour after the crime is entirely inconsistent with anything other than culpability. That's why so many of the pro-guilt crowd hang onto the misguided and incorrect mantra that this crime could only have been carried out by numerous assailants working in concert*. The plain fact is that this crime could be - and in fact was - carried out by one athletic young man working alone and carrying a threatening knife (which allowed him to control the victim up to the point of the stabbings). That man was Rudy Guede.

Were you aware in certain quarters there's a shocking lack of knowledge of this particular passage from Massei himself?

The consultants and forensic scientists have asserted that from the point of view of forensic science, it cannot be ruled out that the author of the injuries could have been a single attacker, because the bruises and the wounds from a pointed and cutting weapon are not in themselves incompatible with the action of a single person. With regard to this, it is nevertheless observed that the contribution of each discipline is specifically in the domain of the specific competence of that discipline, and in fact the consultants and forensic experts concentrated their attention on the aspects specifically belonging to forensic science: time of death, cause of death, elements indicating sexual violence, the injuries present on the body of the victim, and the causes and descriptions of these.


The answer given above concerning the possibility of their being inflicted by the action of a single person or by more than one was given in relation to these specific duties and questions, which belong precisely to the domain of forensic science, and the meaning of this answer was thus that there are no scientific elements arising directly from forensic science which could rule out the injuries having been caused by the action of a single person.

I remember on the Harvard Political Review board there was one little bunny who told me such a quote didn't exist! Boy were they surprised when I posted it! I've seen many such quotes since that suggested this woeful lack of knowledge of such a significant element of the case is widespread! In fact, last week or the one before I saw Dr. Ominousness spread this falsehood to a helpless newbie doing her very best to be good and agree with whatever the Masters and Mistresses of the Board decree, which is the best way to survive in certain company....

* And they continue to misrepresent and misinterpret the Italian Supreme Court ruling in Guede's case. The Supreme Court does not address findings of fact - it merely ensures that the law has been correctly followed and applied. And, in any case, different courts can come to entirely different findings of fact in their judgements: one need only look at the significantly different ToD findings in Massei's court versus Guede's courts to see absolute evidence of this. The pro-guilt crowd never talk about that though - I wonder why not?

I don't even know for sure why they brought it up in the first place, I'm still pondering what Mignini and Maresca might have meant by that. I'm leaning towards it being just a technicality at most, that the courts try to 'respect' the other ones for collegial purposes, but in this case may amount to little more than explaining why of the limited actual trial time since November when this started, why so much of it was spent on the likes of Aviello, Allessi, and the fallout from that.

Otherwise it's just an open admission that this is an entirely unfair process, little more than the equivalent of putting their thumbs to their ears, waggling their fingers, and exclaiming: 'Nanny nanny, boo boo, they're being railroaded and we think it's funny!'

 

[Onofarar]

... and we're supposed to believe that they eschewed testing of this item even on December 17, and instead staged the weird drama surrounding the collection of the bra-clasp.

There are only 2 possibilities:

• the stain really was never tested, even though they were specifically looking for evidence against Raff. If this is the case, then it can only be because they already knew that he wasn't involved, and latched onto the bra-clasp because it the results could more easily be rigged;
• the stain had already been tested and the investigators decided for their own reasons to keep the result secret.

In the second case, the motives for doing so are a bit more difficult to read, especially as we can't be sure what the stain was. If it was something innocuous like Vaseline, then there could be no reason for concealing the outcome. If it is Guede's semen, then the investigators might be concealing it because they really are protecting him (as has been suggested), or it could be because they reasoned that a scenario where Guede climaxes during or after the assault is more difficult to work into a 3-way narrative involving Amanda and Raff.

Either way, combined with the bra-clasp histrionics, it's hard to escape the conclusion that the investigators were by Dec 17 engaged in a deliberate strategy to manipulate the evidence.

Put me down in the "they tested it and suppressed the results" camp.

 

[Onofarar]

Tripping up Amanda Knox with a 10 cent lawyers' trick is one thing, but actually beating up on a court-saavy expert witness is something different. I do expect that Comodi will be able to score a few points by pointing out specific details that the experts messed up, but this won't be enough to significantly undermine the experts' overall opinion. She'd better be careful, too, because I have a feeling that Hellmann will not be in the mood for nonsense.

I hope Hellman will be alert to her shenanigans - she seems to be a much more accomplished liar than Mignini. When she tries her "Smoke and Mirrors" act I would like to see nothing better than for all that smoke to be blown straight up her ***!