Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Grinder]

Good point Halides1, good point.

How does a person selectlively remove their DNA from clothing but leave another persons DNA?

The Hoover DNA Select-o-Matic Vacuum

How come Raffaele did not leave his DNA on or in the victim, like Rudy Guede did? Raffaele did not touch Meredith afterwards? I can not believe that a guy, who removed a bra off a struggling women during a rape, would not then touch her body, somehow, somewhere.

Specifically how is it explained that he left DNA on the bra clasp side but not on the rest of it? Not where the clasp hooks to or on the other side the piece was cut from.

ETA: Seriously, the defense should repeat this over and over. How is it possible to leave no DNA? How is possible not to have one cut or minor injury as Rudy had?

 

[bri1]

Raff has hardly been mentioned at all. Part of him must be wishing he didn't have a co-defendant.

"Maresca was thr when bloody felpa was taken in2 evidence, not left behind as media reported, remembers how cold it was that day. "

???

I guess he is trying to obfuscate things, there are photos of it showing up during the second search.

Maresca is a nasty, dangerous little man. As far as I'm aware, Oggi (correctly) reported that the jacket was taken into evidence, but only after 46 days. Way to lie in order to construct a straw man. I hope the defense points out this attempt to mislead. Plus, since when is it OK to leave such important evidence at the crime scene for 6 weeks?
The whole 'no defensive wounds, must be multiple attackers holding Meredith down' argument might've been precluded if the jacket was examined in a timely fashion, and if the jacket showed that maybe it had been used to control Meredith. But by the time the jacket was examined properly, the prosecution had already been on the 'multiple attacker' angle for 6 weeks.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Perugia Shock: Frank Sfarzo:
COMODI: “ONLY ONE POSSIBILITY REMAINS: THAT THE POLICE PUT A BIT OF DNA ON IT”

http://perugiashock.com/2011/09/25/...ains-that-the-police-put-a-bit-of-dna-on-it”/

 

[RWVBWL]

BLNadeau Barbie Latza Nadeau Twitter

Comodi says the blood on the sweater was #meredithkercher and #rudyguede in #amandaknox appeal. Trying to downplay forensic flubs.

So what, exactly, is she saying? That on the sweater there was Meredith's blood and Guede's DNA/blood? Or what?

If that's correct, then we've got yet another proof of Guede's presence in the room and still not a speck of Amanda and Raffaele.

_________________

It's Meredith's bloody sweatshirt.

///

Hi Fine,
Snook1 posted this tweet, I guess they are called, the other day, and it has stuck in my brain.

Do you know anything about Rudy's blood being on Meredith's sweatshirt? Is it true?

Is that a slip of the tongue, such as what Stefanoni did right before the summer break during the 1st trial?
Thanks for any answer,
RW

 

[Grinder]

Perugia Shock: Frank Sfarzo:
COMODI: “ONLY ONE POSSIBILITY REMAINS: THAT THE POLICE PUT A BIT OF DNA ON IT”

They should use Cody's flu analogy adding to it that even when one takes all recommended precautions, somehow, we still occasionally get the flu or a cold. I this case they didn't even follow all precautions.

 

[Wildhorses]

The bloody sweatshirt that cops threw into the basket instead of collecting it. It's nothing new, it's in the documentation that it was collected after month and a half during the December inspection.

It's interesting that prosecution and Maresca assume that the jury has no idea about all of it and learn about the case only from the TV, not the documentation.

In that case there are many surprises that the defence can pull tomorrow. E.g. they can replay the mop giftwrapping and walking it around the cottage, and other antics of Steffi. I really think they should revisit all the early blunders and lies of the cops beginning with the unfortunate "caso chiuso". I wonder how they will perform tomorrow.

I would bet the jury knows a lot less about the case than the average pro/anti-guilt poster. That's the maddening thing about this case. So much dust was kicked up that it takes unusual committment to distinguish fact from fiction.

I hope the jury has access to facts. I hope the defense drives an aircraft carrier through the holes. But it is scary... No one's stopped the prosecution from telling bold-faced lies.

 

[Fine]

It features in the 18 December video. He is being deceptive.

_______________

Rose,

To be fair to Maresca maybe he's just profoundly confused.........has someone now cast a spell on him too?

///

 

[katy_did]

The Hoover DNA Select-o-Matic Vacuum

Specifically how is it explained that he left DNA on the bra clasp side but not on the rest of it? Not where the clasp hooks to or on the other side the piece was cut from.

Comodi said the other day (with the aid of the bra prop) that Guede was holding one side of it while Raffaele held the other part as he was cutting it. It's a shame no one cottoned on to Dan_O's convincing theory of the bra being torn instead, since that tends to support the single attacker theory. Why tear the bra if two people are restraining the victim and it's much easier to cut it/undo it? Maybe it's because the attacker was holding the knife to the victim's throat with one hand, so only had one hand free to pull on the bra as he tried to remove it.

 

[Diocletus]

In that case there are many surprises that the defence can pull tomorrow. E.g. they can replay the mop giftwrapping and walking it around the cottage, and other antics of Steffi. I really think they should revisit all the early blunders and lies of the cops beginning with the unfortunate "caso chiuso". I wonder how they will perform tomorrow.

I'm think that the defense adopts the following tactics:

1. Briefly express offense at ad hominem/bombastic/offensive attacks, and call it a smokescreen.
2. Make the point that case is about standard of proof and evidence.
3. Make point that evidence shows: 1) alibi, 2) Rudy was murderer, 3) reasonable doubt that Knox/Solellecito did it.
4. Highlight apparent points of agreement
a. TOD not 11:30
b. Killer used cell phones
c. No motive, etc.
5. Alibi
a. When did the crime occur--easy argument now
b. Computer evidence provides alibi
6. Argue the Rudy did it, outline evidence against him.
7. Argue that Knox Sollicito did not do it.
a. Highlight absence of evidence against them compared with case v. Rudy
b. Knock out all evidence against Knox/Sollecito, piece by piece
8. Tell jury to decide on the facts and law, not the innuendo and insult

Sollecito's lawyer will pay particular attention to the clasp collection fiasco. Knox's lawyer will pay particular attention to the knife fiasco and to the coerced signing of the cops' statements (compare effect of taped evidence collection with alleged lack of taping of interrogation).

Caso chiuso. If Hellmann is mad enough as a result of the prosecution antics in closings and in the prior case, then he will acquit on the culumnia as well.

 

[JREF2010]

Maresca is a nasty, dangerous little man. As far as I'm aware, Oggi (correctly) reported that the jacket was taken into evidence, but only after 46 days. Way to lie in order to construct a straw man. I hope the defense points out this attempt to mislead. Plus, since when is it OK to leave such important evidence at the crime scene for 6 weeks?
The whole 'no defensive wounds, must be multiple attackers holding Meredith down' argument might've been precluded if the jacket was examined in a timely fashion, and if the jacket showed that maybe it had been used to control Meredith. But by the time the jacket was examined properly, the prosecution had already been on the 'multiple attacker' angle for 6 weeks.

Maresca trying to pretend he's a "Torre" is like Comodi doing a lame attempt at pretending to be a scientist using recipe analogy's.

But the defense sleeping makes one wonder whats really going on in the room.
This seems very unprofessional and insulting to the victims family. imo.

 

[RoseMontague]

I see on PMF Dott (ssa) org a mention that some of the Knox family walked out in protest today as per today show? Anyone seen a mention of this?

 

[snook1]

Hi Fine,
Snook1 posted this tweet, I guess they are called, the other day, and it has stuck in my brain.

Do you know anything about Rudy's blood being on Meredith's sweatshirt? Is it true?

Is that a slip of the tongue, such as what Stefanoni did right before the summer break during the 1st trial?
Thanks for any answer,
RW

Yes, I asked also on IIP, but no one knew.

 

[Dougm]

The Hoover DNA Select-o-Matic Vacuum



Specifically how is it explained that he left DNA on the bra clasp side but not on the rest of it? Not where the clasp hooks to or on the other side the piece was cut from.

ETA: Seriously, the defense should repeat this over and over. How is it possible to leave no DNA? How is possible not to have one cut or minor injury as Rudy had?

Also, how could they possibly have not had blood on their clothes? Are they still trying to get people to imagine that they were naked, then washed up in the bathroom, and put clean clothes back on? Oh, Rudy had clothes on, but he is the one whos DNA showed up. It's crazy.

 

[Grinder]

Comodi said the other day (with the aid of the bra prop) that Guede was holding one side of it while Raffaele held the other part as he was cutting it. It's a shame no one cottoned on to Dan_O's convincing theory of the bra being torn instead, since that tends to support the single attacker theory. Why tear the bra if two people are restraining the victim and it's much easier to cut it/undo it? Maybe it's because the attacker was holding the knife to the victim's throat with one hand, so only had one hand free to pull on the bra as he tried to remove it.

Was Rudy's DNA on the bra? i can't remember.

 

[Grinder]

I'm think that the defense adopts the following tactics:

1. Briefly express offense at ad hominem/bombastic/offensive attacks, and call it a smokescreen.
2. Make the point that case is about standard of proof and evidence.
3. Make point that evidence shows: 1) alibi, 2) Rudy was murderer, 3) reasonable doubt that Knox/Solellecito did it.
4. Highlight apparent points of agreement
a. TOD not 11:30
b. Killer used cell phones
c. No motive, etc.
5. Alibi
a. When did the crime occur--easy argument now
b. Computer evidence provides alibi
6. Argue the Rudy did it, outline evidence against him.
7. Argue that Knox Sollicito did not do it.
a. Highlight absence of evidence against them compared with case v. Rudy
b. Knock out all evidence against Knox/Sollecito, piece by piece
8. Tell jury to decide on the facts and law, not the innuendo and insult

Sollecito's lawyer will pay particular attention to the clasp collection fiasco. Knox's lawyer will pay particular attention to the knife fiasco and to the coerced signing of the cops' statements (compare effect of taped evidence collection with alleged lack of taping of interrogation).

Caso chiuso. If Hellmann is mad enough as a result of the prosecution antics in closings and in the prior case, then he will acquit on the culumnia as well.

You'd just ignore the "statements" and the police "knowing the truth" before DNA results had been returned?

 

[RoseMontague]

Was Rudy's DNA on the bra? i can't remember.

The bra yes, the clasp no.

 

[katy_did]

Was Rudy's DNA on the bra? i can't remember.

Yes, I think it was on the back of the strap (to the left of the clasp).

 

[RWVBWL]

Perugia Shock: Frank Sfarzo:
COMODI: “ONLY ONE POSSIBILITY REMAINS: THAT THE POLICE PUT A BIT OF DNA ON IT”

They should use Cody's flu analogy adding to it that even when one takes all recommended precautions, somehow, we still occasionally get the flu or a cold. I this case they didn't even follow all precautions.

Hi Grinder,
That quote of CodyJuneau's is a gem, it's simple and easy to understand:
“It seems to me that DNA contamination/transfer is like catching the flu.
You don’t know when, where or how you contacted the virus.
But you know you did!”

I posted it on Perugia Shock the other day, Frank later wrote this in the comment section:

Damn, a few comments but high high level, seriously, I gotta copy something from here.

Be cool to see it mentioned in court...
RW

 

[Grinder]

Maresca trying to pretend he's a "Torre" is like Comodi doing a lame attempt at pretending to be a scientist using recipe analogy's.

But the defense sleeping makes one wonder whats really going on in the room.
This seems very unprofessional and insulting to the victims family. imo.

I would say it is more insulting to the defendants.

 

[commandlinegamer]

I hesitate to get involved in Amanda Knox-related matters*, but noticed today on the frontpage of aol.co.uk the headline "Ex-suspect brands Knox 'she-devil'." The accompanying photograph, lit from above and with what appears to be a slight smirk, though that may be just my imagination, does look somewhat ghoulish. The picture contained in the linked article though, is more neutral.

I just found the former to be a poor choice of image.

* - I haven't formed a view on the case.