Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[katy_did]

I haven't seen much discussion here about Comodi's claim that the knife was tested six days after the last test related to the case, and it does arouse my curiosity.

First of all, since we don't (yet?) have a transcript of the hearing, I don't know exactly what was claimed. Were there no tests in the laboratory at all for six days, or just no tests related to the case, or just no tests of samples specifically containing Meredith's DNA? Press reports are of course contradictory and ambiguous as usual.

Secondly, I don't know how long these tests actually take. (Maybe halides1 knows something here.) For all I know, maybe no tests were performed six days before the knife was tested, but on that day a number of Kercher-related items were tested before the knife. This level of mendacity would hardly be beyond "turnip juice" Comodi, especially given that she was apparently prepared to submit bogus documents to the court regarding negative controls. After all, if there really were an actual delay of six days between the previous test and the knife (and not merely between testing sessions, say) why wouldn't we have heard about this "fact" before? Why wouldn't Stefanoni have emphasized it all along? Why wouldn't Conti and Vecchiotti have noticed?

Agreed, these (and especially the bolded part) were my thoughts on hearing Comodi's claim too. Of course, it's difficult to tell without having the transcript, but what she's reported as having said wouldn't rule out items containing Meredith's DNA having been tested on the same day as the knife. Naturally you'd assume this didn't happen, otherwise the six days claim is meaningless, but as I said before perhaps we can't actually make that assumption with a statement from Comodi.

Then there's the question of what Comodi means by items containing Meredith's DNA (or whatever her exact words were). Did they only test items from Raffaele's flat on that day, or did they test some items from the cottage too, some of Amanda's things for example? Because if the latter, then clearly - with Meredith's DNA being all over the cottage, and especially given the lack of proper crime scene procedures - there's a risk that any items collected from the cottage might contain her DNA.

And lastly, a more sensitive procedure was carried out on the knife than on any other items seized - AFAIK, nothing else which gave a 'too low' result was analyzed. How do they know other items didn't contain Meredith's DNA, when they didn't test them in the same way as they did the knife? If the knife had been tested in the standard way other items were tested, it wouldn't have contained Meredith's DNA either!

Overall, I think the defence should investigate Comodi's claim pretty carefully.

 

[HumanityBlues]

HumanityBlues,

I am having a conversation with Maundy that closely follows your question at his blog. Maundy's position seems to be intermediate between "contamination must be proved" and "if you don't follow guidelines, the evidence is out." The latter is my position.

Yes I saw that.

The weirdos arguing for guilt basically can't defend how bad the evidence collection is so they have to resort to ridiculous arguments (Padron's kindergartenesque argument re: Missouri Highway patrol).

I know this is going to come as a shock to the guilters, but DNA happens to be microscopic, and the only way to come close to proving DNA transfer in this situation is to show how bad the evidence collection is to a point where items of evidence have been comprised.

*Missouri Patrol* Padron is free to cite any other sources he wants that say things like "don't worry about changing gloves, it doesn't really matter" or "don't worry, feel free to not change your booties and don't put on a hair net or anything"-----the list goes on and on and on. Good luck to you Padron. I hope you find that needle in the haystack you need to make an actually valid argument for once.

A good principle of admissibility is that when the prosecution blatantly compromises a piece of evidence, they shouldn't then get to reap the rewards of that compromised evidence.

 

[katy_did]

May I argue that that when Academics from a University in Rome Italy have to resort to scouring Missouri State Highway Patrol Handbooks to get the Protocol 'spin' they desire, this stretches the definition and applicability of "easily established" protocols to previously unsurpassed levels of absurdity.
"***"

Nice to see you back, Pilot. I think your comment about 'spin' is interesting, because what you're saying is that the experts deliberately handpicked the sources that supported their argument and ignored the ones that didn't. Now if that were true, I'd agree with the accusations of bias - but isn't it really the case that all these manuals, including the ENFSI one they mention, say the same darn things? Is there some manual somewhere the experts ignored, which says "Always make a note of everyone who enters the crime scene, unless they're with the Public Minister, whose anti-contamination shield will prevent any pollution of the evidence"?

It may be that the experts' review of the crime scene manuals is slanted towards what was available to them, naturally, particularly online - but the only way this becomes significant is if they ignored prominent and reputable sources which contradict the many manuals they cite. I don't think there are any, are there?

 

[billyryan]

I think Hellman (or however he spells it) thinks Stefanoni is lying about the negative controls. I also think, therefore, that he might not necessarily accept the assurances about the elapsed time between the tests at face value. I think he noticed Stefanoni's foot-dragging as regards providing the requested raw data, and has perhaps been suspicious from the get-go.

Are the defence team any good? I mean, if the Zeist court still brought in a guilty verdict after Giaka was thrown out as a lying scumbag making stuff up to order on the instructions of the CIA and DoJ, to get US citizenship (quite a prize for a Libyan) and entry into the US witness protection programme, anything's possible.

Rolfe.

"are the defence team any good" Stefanoni takes the stand in September the defence lawyers have five weeks to prepare she should and she must be shredded,she lied about testing the luminol prints for blood she lied about the size of the DNA sample on the knife,she is probably lying about the negative controls and also about the elapsed time between the tests,this woman has deliberately and knowingly caused their innocent clients to spend four years in prison,when this b***h takes the stand the defence lawyers must deliver

 

[PhantomWolf]

May I argue that that when Academics from a University in Rome Italy have to resort to scouring Missouri State Highway Patrol Handbooks to get the Protocol 'spin' they desire, this stretches the definition and applicability of "easily established" protocols to previously unsurpassed levels of absurdity.
"***"

Except as anyone that has read that section knows, your attempted spin isn't true at all.

They start off by quoting from the following:

Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation and Crime Scene Management: scene specific methods

They then move on to looking at the books used by the follow groups:

• Criminal Justice Missouri Southern State
• Louisiana State Police Crime Laboratory

before moving to the bigger guns:

U.S. Department of Justice
Laboratory Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

At that point they point out that all procedure handbooks have this, and throw in three examples of low down the tree groups that all have the same procedures as the big guys. This is to point out that no-one can say "But the Perugia police are just locals and have different standards.

Examples given are:

• Office of Forensic Sciences, New Jersey State Police
• Missouri State Highway Patrol, Forensic Laboratory
• North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation

It's interesting to note that the one of those example you go after they never even quoted from, just listed it as an example.

They then finish off pointing out that it's not just the US that use these techniques and procedures, but that Europe does too, quoting from:

Interpol Handbook on DNA Data Exchange and Practice

And then noting that the very guides that the Rome Lab claims to follow have these same protocols in them, they quote from those as well:

Guidance on the Production of Best Practice Manuals within ENFSI
European Crime Scene Management: Good Practice Manual

So which of the above groups do you think have these procedures wrong?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Except as anyone that has read that section knows, your attempted spin isn't true at all.

They start off by quoting from the following:

Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation and Crime Scene Management: scene specific methods

They then move on to looking at the books used by the follow groups:

• Criminal Justice Missouri Southern State
• Louisiana State Police Crime Laboratory

before moving to the bigger guns:

U.S. Department of Justice
Laboratory Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

At that point they point out that all procedure handbooks have this, and throw in three examples of low down the tree groups that all have the same procedures as the big guys. This is to point out that no-one can say "But the Perugia police are just locals and have different standards.

Examples given are:

• Office of Forensic Sciences, New Jersey State Police
• Missouri State Highway Patrol, Forensic Laboratory
• North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation

It's interesting to note that the one of those example you go after they never even quoted from, just listed it as an example.

They then finish off pointing out that it's not just the US that use these techniques and procedures, but that Europe does too, quoting from:

Interpol Handbook on DNA Data Exchange and Practice

And then noting that the very guides that the Rome Lab claims to follow have these same protocols in them, they quote from those as well:

Guidance on the Production of Best Practice Manuals within ENFSI
European Crime Scene Management: Good Practice Manual

So which of the above groups do you think have these procedures wrong?

I would love to see Padron actually respond to this, but somehow I just don't think that's going to happen.

 

[Kaosium]

Mr Lowe, may I argue that if you simply change the words "witch hunt" to "cheerleader" your argument applies equally if not more so to many of the 58,385+ 'arguments' here.

What time do you think Meredith Kercher died, Pilot? Do you really think it was 11:40? Doesn't it bother you that there's not a single bunny or kitten down the rabbit hole that could figure out that a ToD of 11:40 was scientifically impossible with all of her food in her stomach and not a bit in the duodenum? Don't you recall the scorn, derision, and outright hostility visited upon (mainly) LondonJohn and Kevin_Lowe when they put together the literature, realized the Massei Court had come to an unsupportable conclusion, yet stood their ground and for months took on all comers on that subject with rational argument?

There's three people posting at PMF who claim to have scientific backgrounds, one was quoted as an 'expert' by Andrea Vogt to refute the claims of poor science and forensics evident regarding the collection and testing of bra clasp; her 'expert opinion' was such claims by the defense were "groundless." In my mind there's a vast gulf between "groundless" and 'bitch-slapped' which is a pretty apt description of what the C&V report did to her, to the point I actually felt sorry for her at some points whilst reading it.

May I argue that that when Academics from a University in Rome Italy have to resort to scouring Missouri State Highway Patrol Handbooks to get the Protocol 'spin' they desire, this stretches the definition and applicability of "easily established" protocols to previously unsurpassed levels of absurdity.
"***"

You know what I can't help but think? If that wasn't a pretty standard, in fact pretty much universal, protocol, defense lawyers in Missouri would have used that against them in court as 'not complying' with known forensic standards to get their clients off. Thus they would never publish it or they would have changed it. I think the fact one can corroborate that information from multiple sources with just a cursory inquiry ought to suggest that it didn't matter if one took the Missouri State Patrol handbook or an introductory criminology textbook, the information was correct, the real question raised is how come the Scientific Polizia from Rome were unaware of such, or if they were why they disregarded it entirely.

Tell you what, instead of mocking the Missouri State Patrol handbook, why don't you show me a source that says passing around crucial DNA evidence like it was a joint at a Pink Floyd concert is perfectly acceptable practice? That is, outside PMF, where 'expert opinion' amounted to 'groundless' and not a single little bunny or kitten dared contest such a ridiculous notion (on the front page at least...) nor bothered to tell the legions of lemmings coming here (or playing at 'home' at PMF) to mock Kevin_Lowe or LondonJohn's analysis regarding ToD that they were making damned bloody fools of themselves?

I also think it ought to have been pretty much common sense to the most casual observer what Stefanoni and company were doing wasn't proper practice.

 

[HumanityBlues]

What time do you think Meredith Kercher died, Pilot? Do you really think it was 11:40? Doesn't it bother you that there's not a single bunny or kitten down the rabbit hole that could figure out that a ToD of 11:40 was scientifically impossible with all of her food in her stomach and not a bit in the duodenum? Don't you recall the scorn, derision, and outright hostility visited upon (mainly) LondonJohn and Kevin_Lowe when they put together the literature, realized the Massei Court had come to an unsupportable conclusion, yet stood their ground and for months took on all comers on that subject with rational argument?

There's three people posting at PMF who claim to have scientific backgrounds, one was quoted as an 'expert' by Andrea Vogt to refute the claims of poor science and forensics evident regarding the collection and testing of bra clasp; her 'expert opinion' was such claims by the defense were "groundless." In my mind there's a vast gulf between "groundless" and 'bitch-slapped' which is a pretty apt description of what the C&V report did to her, to the point I actually felt sorry for her at some points whilst reading it.



You know what I can't help but think? If that wasn't a pretty standard, in fact pretty much universal, protocol, defense lawyers in Missouri would have used that against them in court as 'not complying' with known forensic standards to get their clients off. Thus they would never publish it or they would have changed it. I think the fact one can corroborate that information from multiple sources with just a cursory inquiry ought to suggest that it didn't matter if one took the Missouri State Patrol handbook or an introductory criminology textbook, the information was correct, the real question raised is how come the Scientific Polizia from Rome were unaware of such, or if they were why they disregarded it entirely.

Tell you what, instead of mocking the Missouri State Patrol handbook, why don't you show me a source that says passing around crucial DNA evidence like it was a joint at a Pink Floyd concert is perfectly acceptable practice? That is, outside PMF, where 'expert opinion' amounted to 'groundless' and not a single little bunny or kitten dared contest such a ridiculous notion (on the front page at least...) nor bothered to tell the legions of lemmings coming here (or playing at 'home' at PMF) to mock Kevin_Lowe or LondonJohn's analysis that were making damned bloody fools of themselves?

I also think it ought to have been pretty much common sense to the most casual observer what Stefanoni and company were doing wasn't proper practice.

If Padron would just use a library card he would have access to a plethora of sources to show how universal these basic protocols and procedures are. Instead, he'd rather adopt ridiculous talking points from the sick site.

No disrespect to the independent experts, but most of this stuff is just really basic. A 10 year old could watch the videos and put 2 and 2 together.

ETA: Speaking of 10 year olds, check out what Lorica Jones learned on her trip to North Georgia College----

"While on my trip I learned about Forensic DNA Analysis. It’s an application and combination of both advanced molecule analysis and information technology. You can use the analysis of DNA for information on sources of biological evidence. Forensic science exploits differences in inherited DNA. I learned that evidence collection and preservation should not be contaminated. You should change gloves between different evidence items. Package each item separately. Wet stains must be air dried before sealing package. You should pack samples in paper bags only; not plastic."

Adorable right?

 

[Kaosium]

If Padron would just use a library card he would have access to a plethora of sources to show how universal these basic protocols and procedures are. Instead, he'd rather adopt ridiculous talking points from the sick site.

No disrespect to the independent experts, but most of this stuff is just really basic. A 10 year old could watch the videos and put 2 and 2 together.

ETA: Speaking of 10 year olds, check out what Lorica Jones learned on her trip to North Georgia College----

"While on my trip I learned about Forensic DNA Analysis. It’s an application and combination of both advanced molecule analysis and information technology. You can use the analysis of DNA for information on sources of biological evidence. Forensic science exploits differences in inherited DNA. I learned that evidence collection and preservation should not be contaminated. You should change gloves between different evidence items. Package each item separately. Wet stains must be air dried before sealing package. You should pack samples in paper bags only; not plastic."

Adorable right?

Great find HB! That's a great link! Oh....I could have some fun with this one! However in deference to our guest I will demur.

Incidentally, this has bugged me ever since you changed your avatar, who the hell is that? He looks so familiar and I feel like an idiot for having to ask, but it's just not coming to me and I'm too lazy to google for pics of who I suspect it might be. Syd Barrett? A young Jim Morrison? It has been driving me crazy!

 

[Diocletus]

Was that six day claim in reference to the knife or the clasp? Off the top of my head, the knife DNA was 'discovered' around November 15th. Maybe it was the forteenth, perhaps the sixteenth, but I'm virtually certain it was after the twelfth (because of the Times/Fox piece I've posted a dozen times) and before the 20th, because I recall thinking they had that as 'evidence' when they let Patrick go when I looked into it. Ha! I just looked it up and it looks like I was almost right, I recalled the day of the article and not the day it would have happened in Perugia.

At any rate, if it was the 14th, that would mean between the eighth, when they didn't have any forensic evidence at all before Matteini, they didn't test a damn thing until they they did the knife. It must have been their first day of testing they did that incredibly unlikely item? That doesn't make sense, and you wouldn't think they'd want to suggest what that might imply...

I'm very interested in this. If you look back at the articles, they were doing all sorts of testing of items from the cottage in order to implicate Lumumba, and in the course of this detected a different attacker (Rudy). Obviously, Meredith's DNA would have been all over this stuff . . .

Then, on or about the 14th, they test the knife?

So, as you say, they would have us believe that all of the cottage testing was done by the 8th? I don't think this adds up.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Great find HB! That's a great link! Oh....I could have some fun with this one! However in deference to our guest I will demur.

Incidentally, this has bugged me ever since you changed your avatar, who the hell is that? He looks so familiar and I feel like an idiot for having to ask, but it's just not coming to me and I'm too lazy to google for pics of who I suspect it might be. Syd Barrett? A young Jim Morrison? It has been driving me crazy!

Marc Bolan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ff7hl3xKPo You probably know him from this song if you are in the states.

 

[PhantomWolf]

ETA: Speaking of 10 year olds, check out what Lorica Jones learned on her trip to North Georgia College----

"While on my trip I learned about Forensic DNA Analysis. It’s an application and combination of both advanced molecule analysis and information technology. You can use the analysis of DNA for information on sources of biological evidence. Forensic science exploits differences in inherited DNA. I learned that evidence collection and preservation should not be contaminated. You should change gloves between different evidence items. Package each item separately. Wet stains must be air dried before sealing package. You should pack samples in paper bags only; not plastic."

Adorable right?

I note that she likely isn't 10, because she's hoping to attend University. However, you could note that Steffi just got owned by a high schooler. Rather ironic that Lorica (the above writer) is a member of the West Rome Club. Perhaps the real Rome could do with her working in their lab, she seems to know more about their jobs than they do.

 

[Fine]

Kaosium,

An interesting statement within the November 15, 2007 news report you linked, HERE........

"Crucial laboratory tests are also currently underway on strands of hair found in Meredith's left hand, which police believe may provide a clue as to who was with Meredith when she was murdered."

Hmmm. If true, those strands of "hair" found in Meredith's left hand weren't lost after all, contrary to Barbie's assurances to the PMF/Skep site via email a month ago.

///

 

[Onofarar]

I note that she likely isn't 10, because she's hoping to attend University. However, you could note that Steffi just got owned by a high schooler. Rather ironic that Lorica (the above writer) is a member of the West Rome Club. Perhaps the real Rome could do with her working in their lab, she seems to know more about their jobs than they do.

Under her picture with the above article it states her goal is to start college in the fall of 2010 and get a degree in criminal justice. She is likely 16 - 18 at the time this was written. Rome is a small city in rural NW Georgia of 34,000 whereas Perugia is 160,000+ and Rome Italy several million.

Its a shame more people in Italy don't broaden their knowledge with a few courses over the summer at University!

 

[Kaosium]

I'm very interested in this. If you look back at the articles, they were doing all sorts of testing of items from the cottage in order to implicate Lumumba, and in the course of this detected a different attacker (Rudy). Obviously, Meredith's DNA would have been all over this stuff . . .

Then, on or about the 14th, they test the knife?

So, as you say, they would have us believe that all of the cottage testing was done by the 8th? I don't think this adds up.

No, it doesn't add up, there's something fishy here and I didn't get a chance to really go over what was said in court the other day and think it through. I didn't actually understand the fuss about Hellmann saying the contamination could have occurred before it got to the lab, I thought that was obvious, thus didn't realize why people thought it important. I suppose I should review those pages, there's something I must have missed.

Kaosium,

An interesting statement within the November 15, 2007 news report you linked, HERE........

"Crucial laboratory tests are also currently underway on strands of hair found in Meredith's left hand, which police believe may provide a clue as to who was with Meredith when she was murdered."

Hmmm. If true, those strands of "hair" found in Meredith's left hand weren't lost after all, contrary to Barbie's assurances to the PMF/Skep site via email a month ago.

///

I didn't know that! Barbie actually e-mailed someone there? That hardly surprises me for various reasons, I'll just leave it at that. I wouldn't be astonished to find out she's posted there, especially earlier on in the case.

As for the hairs, there's a number of reports of hairs being tested that didn't come out the other end in the Massei Report, other than some fibers that are mentioned and were a part of the appeal. Personally I don't think that accounts for all the possible hairs that were mentioned in various accounts, thus it wouldn't surprise me some were 'lost.' However one can end up losing one's own hair trying to figure out what all might have been which hair, and what could have happened to them all, or which might have been the same ones just with different descriptions in different accounts. I went through it at another site a month or so ago, just as we did on the first ten or so pages of the thread in the Conspiracy section, and ended up getting pissed off when someone found the old PMF 'theory' it was just everyone copying from everyone else and there really was no hair at all--or whatever it was.

 

[Bob001]

It appears from news reports -- I've given up reading this thread closely -- that the Italian appeals court's own independent experts have discredited the meager DNA evidence that was key to the convictions of Knox and Sollecito, largely after reviewing the police's own videos of their evidence collection. Question: Did their original defense lawyers have access to these videos? Did they challenge the way evidence was gathered at the original trial? Could a better defense have won an acquittal at the original trial, or was the fix in from the beginning?

 

[RandyN]

It appears from news reports -- I've given up reading this thread closely -- that the Italian appeals court's own independent experts have discredited the meager DNA evidence that was key to the convictions of Knox and Sollecito, largely after reviewing the police's own videos of their evidence collection. Question: Did their original defense lawyers have access to these videos? Did they challenge the way evidence was gathered at the original trial? Could a better defense have won an acquittal at the original trial, or was the fix in from the beginning?

Ha...all good questions. The defendants are represented by the same lawyers in the appeal. I for one (I cant speak for anyone else) feel the defense lawyers aren’t worth crap. The problem is they may be very good and I simply don’t understand the method to their madness as it were. Firstly, there is the problem that this trial is not really open to the press in that they don’t record it or even offer transcripts. Second, everything we get is in Italian and there are few translators so we never are quite sure about exact details unless a translator dedicates much time to a particular item. With that said I still think the defense lawyers are crap.

Yes, they had all these videos and even more we have never seen. In the first trial they did ask for an independent DNA review but this request was denied by the judge. I personally think they dragged this out for fees. The DNA experts report is the least of the offences committed against the defendants. At one point the Italian Supreme Court ruled certain statements were not allowed in court. The prosecutor still used these statements by sneaking them in during an concurrent civil trial against AK. I saw no appeal to the Italian Supreme Court about this matter though...thus I think they stink...

In reading the appeal documents of both students one understands that the lawyers understood it all. But they seemed resigned to the first courts clear favoritism towards the prosecution. And so they waited until now to bring out the big guns...meanwhile their clients are held jailed almost 4 years now.

Other things I don’t understand is that the defense clearly caught certain prosecution witnesses lying in court but they did nothing. OTOH AK said she was struck by one officer during her interrogation. She is currently being sued by 8 police officers just for saying that. How the hell 8 officers are suing when she said one hit her is beyond me.

Watching the whole affair its clear the Italian Courts operate without oversight. Prosecutors can say and do anything they want...there appears no one willing or able to stop a bad one. This prosecutor Mignini is convicted of official abuse of office...he was sentenced to something like 18 months jail suspended pending appeal and yet he is still allowed by Italian courts to continue in his job where he is able and does commit his crime again.

Finally you question was the fix in from the beginning....I think yes that is certain. Its just astonishing at how many judges made decisions with no real facts. One lead investigator put it this way... we don’t need facts...we simply observe the defendants and by their actions we know the answer....I kid you not!

 

[AmyStrange]

How about Curatolo...

Let me put it this way: how do we know Patrick Lumumba was not involved?

Perhaps no one else noticed, but when Mignini moved the ToD back to 11:30 in his closing statement to account for Curatolo's rambling, (and Massei pushed it further to 11:40) Patrick Lumumba lost his alibi, which was only good through 11:00 PM. There's no evidence he was at the cottage, but there's those two other 'profiles' on the y-halotype, how do we know it wasn't his? There's zero evidence Amanda was in the murder room, and nothing of Raffaele even in the cottage outside that curious clasp and the cigarette butt, it's hardly 'inconceivable' (by those rules!) Patrick could have managed much the same feat.

We know he's a 'liar,' both about his history as a relative to a Congolese politician (or prince?) and about the case as well. The 'soulless' Daily Mail article includes untrue information about Amanda as well as his actions in relation to her. Also--much like Amanda--he claims the cops weren't nice to him at all when they interrogated him, there's no cupcakes and tea in his account in that same Mail piece, there's beatings off camera and denials of his rights. Why is he 'lying' about the cops?

There's even an 'accusation' against him from someone the police have 'proven' in court was there! Mignini himself has said he still believes part of the statements Amanda signed were 'true'--why not this part as well? He sure seems interested in the results of the trial, is he 'managing' it like some think Amanda did the crime scene?

He has about as much proven contact with Rudy Guede as Amanda does, and less than Raffaele, plus it is easier to infer he might have more that has not become public, as he was a considered a leader in the African community in Perugia and someone who would go to people in trouble and try to help and someone people could go to. Rudy had all sorts of trouble, especially being essentially disowned by his foster family and on the verge of being evicted.

Even if you assume a more rational time of death, he could still have been 'involved,' as his alibi begins at 9:00 PM, and he's not far from the cottage anyway, and the Swiss guy might have been off by fifteen minutes or so, giving him enough time to stab Meredith, then race back to Le Chic and open it up for business. As a matter of fact, with the discrediting of Curatolo, there's now more evidence that he was in the vicinity of the cottage than there is Raffaele and Amanda due to the SIM card data, it was his alibi that made his 'story' of changing it when he went to work accepted--according to the Massei ToD he doesn't have an alibi anymore!

On November 8th, the cops produced a litany of crap before Judge Matteini that Patrick, Amanda and Raffaele had raped and murdered Meredith Kercher. Nothing they presented turned out to be true or verifiable about any of the suspects, and they let Patrick go on the 20th when they captured Rudy on the basis of the alibi given to him through eleven PM. At that time they had gotten the knife on Amanda and thought that Raffaele's shoes produced Rudy's bloody shoeprints. Both of those items have now been conclusively dis-proven as 'evidence'

Everything produced afterward reeks of the cops just taking anything they could possibly find and twisting it so it casts 'suspicion' upon Raffaele and Amanda, and all of it upon further inspection turns out to have been either utterly disingenuous, discredited, or a more plausible explanation is completely innocent or irrelevant. You can do that with just about anything or anyone. If that sort of 'evidence' is all one can assemble, then I have to say Raffaele and Amanda have been more or less vetted far better than anyone else involved in this case. I think one could put together a better circumstantial case against a number of police and Mignini than I've seen against Raffaele and Amanda.

-

Well, if we're going to string together possible scenarios of other people who (even with lack of DNA in the "murder" room) may have helped Guede, let's think about Curatolo for a minute.

Even if he messed up the day, he still admits he was near Meredith's house the night (and time) of her murder.

And if he did help him (even as just a lookout), it would explain why Guede has never said anything about it to LE (Law Enforcement). It gives his scenario that Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith (and not him) a little credibility.

The probabilities are pretty good that they knew each other. Guede dealt drugs now and again, and Curatolo was a heroin addict.

And I'm kind of curious what other "crimes" to which he was a "star" witness. Maybe he was protecting Guede by putting the blame on other people?

Just thinking out loud, but these questions do open up a whole other realm of possibilities. What if the "untested" semen stains and DNA samples were... well, I think you get the idea where I'm going with this..,

Dave

-

 

[Kaosium]

-

Well, if we're going to string together possible scenarios of other people who (even with lack of DNA in the "murder" room) may have helped Guede, let's think about Curatolo for a minute.

Even if he messed up the day, he still admits he was near Meredith's house the night (and time) of her murder.

And if he did help him (even as just a lookout), it would explain why Guede has never said anything about it to LE (Law Enforcement). It gives his scenario that Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith (and not him) a little credibility.

The probabilities are pretty good that they knew each other. Guede dealt drugs now and again, and Curatolo was a heroin addict.

And I'm kind of curious what other "crimes" to which he was a "star" witness. Maybe he was protecting Guede by putting the blame on other people?

Just thinking out loud, but these questions do open up a whole other realm of possibilities. What if the "untested" semen stains and DNA samples were... well, I think you get the idea where I'm going with this..,

Dave

-

I've mentioned him in this context too, he's a suspicious character! To add to this there were some bloody tissues found somewhere outside the cottage that didn't match anyone involved in the murder. It could have been Curatolo! After all, that would fit Charlie Wilke's hypothesis they were just litter from drug users!

I've done one for myself even! If there's no 'proof' I entered the country, that's just another thing to charge me with: entering the country illegally! I mean that in satire of how they gave Amanda an extra year for 'smuggling' the knife to the cottage with that silly-ass theory for that knife that spent the entire knife comfortably in Raffaele's drawer. The 'proof' she did that, was that she 'must' have because it was 'used' in the murder, just like how the bathmat stain could have been made me and those luminol prints 'attributed' to Raffaele (they look not unlike my avatar) could be mine, and other things that I can dream up that indicate my 'guilt' in this matter--including I have absolutely no idea what I was doing on November 1st, 2007. Obviously I must be lying, I must be guilty!

One can have fun with this, anyone posting regularly (or writing) about the case has made mistakes--that makes them liars! Look closely at what their mistakes entail and you can find something 'suggestive' of guilt. What are they doing spending so much time following this case--trying to divert suspicion from themselves by either promoting Amanda's guilt or muddying the waters trying to discredit the 'evidence' and the reputation of the police by supporting her innocence. Anyone from England (or all of Britain for that matter, many make that mistake) has the story Rudy purportedly told in jail going against them, especially if they're overweight and bear any resemblance whatsoever to people in Eastern Europe, or wherever it was the fat guy in that story was from. If they drink at all that's just another indication! Guilt is everywhere if you look hard enough!

 

[Rolfe]

Hah! That one sounds a bit like my tale that al-Megrahi has a better alibi for the Lockerbie bombing than I have! (Which is true, actually.)

[/OT]

If you're allowed to get completely fanciful, there's probably nobody you couldn't implicate. Including Patrick Lumumba.

Rolfe.