Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fine]

Was the bra clasp just dropped, or was it knocked out of the cop's fingers when struck with a flashlight? Look at the video, time index = 1:36..........

VIDEO

Looks to me like the clasp collided with the nose of the flashlight, knocking the clasp from the cop's fingers. Another source of contamination? I wonder whether that flashlight had also been used to examine Meredith's door, coming into contact also with the door. Where Raffaele's fingerprints were discovered.

///

 

[ForTruth]

This is very interesting! I wonder what is the source of your info? Amanda was very clear about it:

DALLA VEDOVA: (...) So I wanted to ask you if it was normal for you to go around with a knife?
AK: No.
DALLA VEDOVA: You never had a knife with you?
AK: No.
DALLA VEDOVA: In your pocket or in your purse?
AK: No.​

I think you're mistaken here or your sources are misleading. If you were right, it would be a major point in Massei's report, instead of his bizarre invention.

Yeah - when I read that I should have replied instead of the quick internal BS assessment and dismissal to get on to the next message.
Where on earth did you get the idea she was carrying a knife in northern europe???

 

[Malkmus]

Yeah - when I read that I should have replied instead of the quick internal BS assessment and dismissal to get on to the next message.
Where on earth did you get the idea she was carrying a knife in northern europe???

She had pepper spray, maybe this is what's causing confusion...

 

[snook1]

Just a quick note on Stefanoni - she is not being singled out by Hellmann and silenced. Hellmann is not allowing any witnesses on either side. The independent experts, appointed by the court, destroyed the prosecution's case. It's over. Hellmann is cutting summer recess short to put an end to the nightmare. If Massei would have allowed further testing, Amanda and Raffaele would have never been convicted in the first place.

This amazing post was already *amened* by Diocletus, so I won't be original but here it is...Amen!

Bruce, what does "cutting summer recess short, mean? The break will be shorter than usual?

And are you getting an extra info that it's really that good looking for Amanda and Raffaele ? I'm still kinda anxious about tomorrow.

 

[Draca]

This amazing post was already *amened* by Diocletus, so I won't be original but here it is...Amen!

Bruce, what does "cutting summer recess short, mean? The break will be shorter than usual?

And are you getting an extra info that it's really that good looking for Amanda and Raffaele ? I'm still kinda anxious about tomorrow.

snook1,

Aug 27th falls during the summer break. Hellmann is going to have the court during that time instead of waiting until September. That is a great sign IMO.

 

[Diocletus]

snook1,

Aug 27th falls during the summer break. Hellmann is going to have the court during that time instead of waiting until September. That is a great sign IMO.

This suggests to me that he will have the prosecution on a very short leash tomorrow.

Question. If you are the prosecutor or Maresca, what do you do tomorrow if the schedule has been altered to make this the very last session before closing? If this schedule is true, it tells you that Hellmann has slammed the brakes on this case. Do you go after C&V with everything you have and REALLY piss off Hellmann? Or do you tone it down in hopes of keeping his good graces going into closing argument/summation?

 

[Draca]

This suggests to me that he will have the prosecution on a very short leash tomorrow.

Question. If you are the prosecutor or Maresca, what do you do tomorrow if the schedule has been altered to make this the very last session before closing? If this schedule is true, it tells you that Hellmann has slammed the brakes on this case. Do you go after C&V with everything you have and REALLY piss off Hellmann? Or do you tone it down in hopes of keeping his good graces going into closing argument/summation?

My impression is that Hellmann is not a man who suffers fools easily. In other words the Prosecution and Maresca are screwed either way.

Quite the opposite of Massei it seems.

 

[snook1]

But wait a minute...Was there a change in the schedule? What's the actual schedule now?

Is there a court hearing on Aug 27 th? That would be, indeed, quite promising.

And about Maresca and the prosecutor - I would just keep it low profile to avoid any further embarrassment.

It all looks very good right now...Let's just hope that the nightmare will be over soon!

 

[Kaosium]

This suggests to me that he will have the prosecution on a very short leash tomorrow.

Question. If you are the prosecutor or Maresca, what do you do tomorrow if the schedule has been altered to make this the very last session before closing? If this schedule is true, it tells you that Hellmann has slammed the brakes on this case. Do you go after C&V with everything you have and REALLY piss off Hellmann? Or do you tone it down in hopes of keeping his good graces going into closing argument/summation?

You meekly go to your room and put on five more pairs of underwear so you can hardly even feel the spanking, but you remember to wail like a kicked puppy every time the wooden spoon impacts your well-padded backside so they don't catch on.

 

[snook1]

Does anyone think that judge Massei must feel like a fool right now? I would be embarrassed to the maximum.

I'm just re-reading the ridiculous report that he wrote. What a piece of garbage that is.

 

[Dan O.]

Was the bra clasp just dropped, or was it knocked out of the cop's fingers when struck with a flashlight? Look at the video, time index = 1:36..........

VIDEO

Looks to me like the clasp collided with the nose of the flashlight, knocking the clasp from the cop's fingers. Another source of contamination? I wonder whether that flashlight had also been used to examine Meredith's door, coming into contact also with the door. Where Raffaele's fingerprints were discovered.

///

No. The clasp was not dropped. If you step through the frames you can clearly see the clasp is still in his fingers after the lights are turned off. Then he bends down and places the clasp next to the "Y" marker for the photo shoot.

 

[JREF2010]

Was the bra clasp just dropped, or was it knocked out of the cop's fingers when struck with a flashlight? Look at the video, time index = 1:36..........

VIDEO

Looks to me like the clasp collided with the nose of the flashlight, knocking the clasp from the cop's fingers. Another source of contamination? I wonder whether that flashlight had also been used to examine Meredith's door, coming into contact also with the door. Where Raffaele's fingerprints were discovered.

///

I just watched it again..
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2...peal-testimony-ends-july-30-with-dna-torpedo/

It looks to me it did get hit with the flashlight...(edit) .
But it came from the floor so thats not as bad as the fingers rubbing it, and even rubbing the metal hook part. That was so bizarre to watch again.

 

[JREF2010]

My impression is that Hellmann is not a man who suffers fools easily. In other words the Prosecution and Maresca are screwed either way.

Quite the opposite of Massei it seems.

Did this change of events happen due to the polizia requesting the DVD?
Where is a link to this new info?

As for Massei, he seemed pro-prosecution, but in some fairness, he and his lay-judges were given a different view of the DNA and he didn't allow further inspection of the information. They didn't have the same information.
Luckily for the defense, Massei didn't have his people test for the DNA! Like the interrogation, Mignini probably would have been appointed to choose who would review the DNA again and he'd pick Steanoni most likely. Sarcasm there, but really...look how he investigated the interrogation!

 

[Diocletus]

I just watched it again..
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2...peal-testimony-ends-july-30-with-dna-torpedo/

It looks to me it did get hit with the flashlight...(edit) .
But it came from the floor so thats not as bad as the fingers rubbing it, and even rubbing the metal hook part. That was so bizarre to watch again.

What's up with all the rubbing of that thing. Were they expecting a Genie to pop out and grant them 3 wishes? Then they keep shining bright lights on it like they're conducting an interrogation. The only thing missing is the smack on the back of the head.

ETA: I see they might have hit it with the flashlight. So really, it's just like one of their interrogations. Except for the rubbing.

 

[RandyN]

I have no firm theory, that is why I asked, but haven't read here any reasonable answer yet.

Funny that. I have read at least three, maybe four honest respectful and reasonable answers. You came here to make a point that the independent experts are somehow unreliable because they reference some obscure police manual. You have received answers that beside these obscure references there are also references from respected solid European sources. You ignore those "more solid" references because you refuse to believe that these defendants had nothing to do with this murder and that there is no real evidence that can link them to it.

I bet you agree with The Machine who recently posted the following...

.
"It's worth bearing in mind that Knox's and Sollecito's appeals don't hinge on the knife and bra clasp evidence. There is other crucial forensic evidence such as the mixed blood samples, Sollecito's bloody footprint on the bathmat and the Luminol footprints which isn't being reviewed."

Tell us all here...what do you think of these comments today by Machine?

I think he's nuts personally. There are NO mixed blood samples. I challenge The Machine to show one proof of a mixed blood sample in this case. While there MAY be a mixed DNA sample or two in this case these mixed samples are meaningless due to the expectation of finding ones own DNA in ones OWN home. For example if a murderer rinses his hands in my sink and then the next day I brush my teeth and spit in my own sink it is likely you will find mixed DNA traces. How does that mixed sample implicate me in the murderer's action?

I challenge The Machine to show that the bloody print on the bath mat belongs to RS and not to RG. The experts for the prosecution were shown to be in error when taking measurements. The prosecution expert could not even measure the floor tile correctly, let alone a irregular flowing partial footprint. The final analysis will be that no conclusion can be made about the bath mat print...I will add though that Rudy Guede has admitted in court to being present in this bathroom.

The Machine is wrong when he attributes any meaning at all to the luminol footprints. They have been proven to be tested and found negative for blood. There is no MK DNA in any footprint and further these footprints lead no where and indicate nothing to do with a murder or murderer.

Any other mixed traces are easily explained by contamination due to the unprofessional and not up to standards collection technique used by the various and numerous different police departments allowed on scene to botch up this investigation. That starts with the Perugia phone police up to and including the Rome Scientific police. In between you can add the bumbling of Flying Squads and maybe even Rocky and Bullwinkle.

The guilter thought process is an amazing study in blindness.

 

[Antony]

No. The clasp was not dropped. If you step through the frames you can clearly see the clasp is still in his fingers after the lights are turned off. Then he bends down and places the clasp next to the "Y" marker for the photo shoot.

This is maybe the most baffling part of the video. What are those markers for? Aren't they used in a "whole scene" picture of an undisturbed crime scene, to show where each item was originally found? What meaning does this detail of the comedy act have in the context of the way this item was presented as evidence?

 

[Dan O.]

It is quite clear that Raffaele did not see the toilet in the state it was discovered by the police. Otherwise he wouldn't have said that it was clean.
And yet, he said that he looked at it and it was clean. Is not it a lie?

(the rest later)

Did Raffaele actually say that he looked at the toilet or was he quoting what Amanda said to him? This second interpretation is supported by the testimony of Monica Napoleoni as recorded in Massei and elsewhere:

--Massei[97]-- 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).

The real question is: Why does bolint feel it necessary to manufacturer these so called lies?

 

[RoseMontague]

Just an amazing breakdown from the statement analysis dude in a new post.

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2011/07/amanda-knox-language-of-sexual-homicide.html

Note that when the word "left" is used, it often indicates missing information. 70% of the missing information is due to time constraints, rushing, traffic, etc, with the other 30% being sensitive information.
Note whenever the number 3 enters a statement as it is known as the "liar's number" It should not be considered deceptive on its own, only noted in context. When someone wishes to be deceptive and chooses a number, it is often "3" unless the subject is asked how many drinks he or she had, and then the number is "two". The number 3 enters such as: "I was approached by 3 men" or "At 3 oclock on the third floor..." etc. It is not an indicator of deception on its own, for it is possible to be approached by 3 men on the third floor; only that it should be noted and later factored into the full analysis.

Personally, I think Seamus has left 70% of his brain behind door number 3.

This is very strange, I know, but really what Seamus writes is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else.

 

[Dan O.]

This is maybe the most baffling part of the video. What are those markers for? Aren't they used in a "whole scene" picture of an undisturbed crime scene, to show where each item was originally found? What meaning does this detail of the comedy act have in the context of the way this item was presented as evidence?

They are used to give a context of exactly where a piece of evidence was found because the same marker will show up in both the close up and wide views and the markers can be listed in the evidence logs. But it kind of defeats the purpose if the evidence is moved before it is photographed with the marker.

I wonder if the photo of the clasp by the "Y" marker was presented in court as the location of the rediscovery. There was some discussion previously that the clasp could have become contaminated through the contact with the cord of Amanda's lamp which we see in the video before the clasp is picked up. The guilter response was that the clasp was not near the lamp cord. Some groups just have no qualms about changing reality to meet their needs.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Just an amazing breakdown from the statement analysis dude in a new post.

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2011/07/amanda-knox-language-of-sexual-homicide.html



Personally, I think Seamus has left 70% of his brain behind door number 3.

This is very strange, I know, but really what Seamus writes is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else.

Between this guy, Ergon the self professed Messiah, Eyes for Lies and social media analyst Miss Represented, they have a lot of charlatans to choose from.