Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Diocletus]

There is absolutely no evidence. No evidence of burglary, no evidence of his climbing through the window, no explanation for his leaving bloody footprints, no DNA trace of him in Filomena's room or in the small bathroom.

Um. A burglary is a breaking and entering of a residence to commit a felony inside.

We have a broken window and a dead body. So again, you're wrong.

 

[Ammonitida]

No evidence of burglary, no evidence of his climbing through the window, no explanation for his leaving bloody footprints, no DNA trace of him in Filomena's room or in the small bathroom.

The evidence of burglary can be seen in the broken window that had been shattered with a rock. In addition we have a man with prior history of break-ins one in which a rock shattered a window though he got injured in that one.

There doesn't need to be any DNA trace of him in the small bathroom (or in Filomena's room). No struggle took place there. The DNA and bloody, unambiguous prints matching Rudy at the murder scene is all that's needed.

Just washing in bathroom. By Rudy in a one-time event, and Amanda and Meredith for many weeks. No DNA from Raff was found there, by the way.

 

[Grinder]

Mach,

You have perused the C&V report. You also followed their testimony.

Is it not the case that they said with all the alleles on the bra clasp anybody in the court could be identified as matching?

 

[Diocletus]

Absolutely no. Hellmann explicitly declared that it would be wrong to criticize the prosecution.
And, as I said, there is a big number of judges and magistrates who subscried to the guilty scenario and who still do, so it makes no sense to "blame" MIgnini.

Wrong. Hellmann's statements were directed to the decision to charge the crime. Now we have Hellmann saying, for example, that the staging never even happened. Don't you think that he thinks that maybe Mignini, somewhere along the way, could have figured this out on his own? The only way your interpretation makes any sense is if Hellmann is saying that Mignini is so stupid that he is excused from figuring this out. ANd in that case, what you are proposing that Hellmann said is "if I were as stupid as Mignini, I would have done the same thing." Funny.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>There is no unlawful interrogation; instead there is a defendant who was convicted for calunnia, which means proven to be a malicious liar beyond doubt.

AND.....he's back.

 

[RoseMontague]

I believe the purpose of that dangerously self-sabotaging post was to serve as an excuse for why no one in the media asked for her opinion in the aftermath of the acquittal. It makes it look like she has lost credibility because of her past behavior, not because of her current beliefs.

I thought she just wanted to make the point that she should know just how messed up some people can get and do terrible, horrible, incredibly stupid stuff.

 

[RoseMontague]

AND.....he's back.

I guess if he says it long enough he thinks maybe somebody will believe it. Rinse and repeat.

 

[Dan O.]

Machiavelli said that on the basis of one single piece of evidence, if the print on the bath mat is Raffaele's then he is guilty of murder. By that same logic, since Raffaele was found not guilty of Meredith's murder then the footprint cannot belong to Raffaele.

 

[RoseMontague]

Here is something I could use some help with.

http://translate.googleusercontent....greto/&usg=ALkJrhjdqK32nZXw8rE2gNTZwVhKYCW9ig

I am curious just how much of the courts deliberations a judge/juror is allowed to discuss (beyond the Motivation report). Certainly we have had Hellmann and another judge discussing why they found Raffaele innocent. Is there something different about this? Curious, sounds familiar the book part anyway. Does anyone have some information on this?

 

[snook1]

I guess if he says it long enough he thinks maybe somebody will believe it. Rinse and repeat.

Obviously.

 

[RoseMontague]

Fair warning, this is a bit of sarcasm posted on nonciclopedia poking fun at the Italian media obsession with the Scazzi case (I usually don't bother with the warning).

 

[davefoc]

The facts are:
1) the court was working just on the identical data report already submitted by the defnce that the Massei court had. The "new" updates brought in the Appeals contain no relevant information, anyway they were not admitted by Hellmann's court so they cannot be in their motivations
2) there is no data in the report that could demonstrate a period of human activity; the screeensaver logs is a ridiculous datum, many automatic application would produce those logs
3) traces of human activites in Raffaele's apartment do not work as an alibi for the night, especially not an alibi valid for two, both liars and unreliable


conclusion: nothing is "compelling" in these data.

I was interested in point one in particular.

My understanding was that the defense had submitted new data that showed disk activity and had asked the court if it wanted and independent review of the disk analysis. The court, perhaps because the prosecution didn't challenge the defense analysis, declined to ask for an independent review. However, the defense analysis of the Sollecito's disk was accepted into evidence as I understood the situation from this thread and from links included in this thread. Was my understanding incorrect? Is it possible that this question can be answered definitively by referring to the appeals document and the court ruling?

On point two, I remember reading through a technical discussion of the disk activity which I did not understand in its entirety. However the gist seemed to be that a more sophisticated disk analysis program than the prosecution had used originally showed human activity during the time in question. Was my understanding incorrect?

Point three was an interesting diatribe. The charge against RS/AK is that they worked in concert with Guede to kill Kercher. Evidence that one of them wasn't at the crime scene would at the least undermines the prosecution theory of the case. It is particularly interesting diatribe in light of the fact that the police destroyed Knox's hard disk and then would not allow the manufacturer of the disk to attempt to retrieve evidence from the disk which might have provided direct evidence that Knox wasn't at the crime scene also.

 

[snook1]

I see the guilters are now talking about DNA flying around and even flying out from from the crime scene. They say:

-So where is the DNA evidence of Kokomani in the "murder room?"
-Oh, let's see. You know how DNA flies around? Well, sometimes it flies away from a crime scene, without anyone noticing.
-Oh, so that's why there's no Guede DNA, no fibers, no sweat, no fingerprints, no nuthin' at Filomena's room! Guede's traces were at Filomena's but they ...flew away

Should we now, talk about Amanda's and Raffaele's DNA flying out of the crime scene also? Or what? Wasn't it established that there's nothing in the murder room of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito?

Amazing, how they are fine with lack of Knox's DNA in the room and they say she attacked and killed Meredith, but they are not fine when it comes to believing to an idea that Guede broke in via a window and didn't leave his DNA. They're truly stupid. Ding Dong!

 

[RoseMontague]

I see the guilters are now talking about DNA flying around and even flying out from from the crime scene. They say:

-

So where is the DNA evidence of Kokomani in the "murder room?"
-Oh, let's see. You know how DNA flies around? Well, sometimes it flies away from a crime scene, without anyone noticing.
-Oh, so that's why there's no Guede DNA, no fibers, no sweat, no fingerprints, no nuthin' at Filomena's room! Guede's traces were at Filomena's but they ...flew away

Should we now, talk about Amanda's and Raffaele's DNA flying out of the crime scene also? Or what? Wasn't it established that there's nothing in the murder room of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito?

Amazing, how they are fine with lack of Knox's DNA in the room and they say she attacked and killed Meredith, but they are not fine when it comes to believing to an idea that Guede broke in via a window and didn't leave his DNA. They're truly stupid. Ding Dong!

What items were tested in Filomena's room that might have had The Real burglar or stager's DNA?

Rep.169 – Large rock and nr.2 fragment, presumably the same one, found on the floor inside the room in use by Filomena ROMANELLI, exhibit carried out by the Technical Consultant di Parte Prof. Saverio POTENZA (sample U) page 169 A.F./210 R.;
Rep.176 – Sample of presumed blood substance, revealed by luminol, carried out on the floor situated in the room in use by Filomena ROMANELLI (sample L1) – page 171 A.F./218 R.;
Rep.177 – Sample of presumed blood substance, revealed by luminol, present on the floor situated in the room in use by Filomena ROMANELLI (sample L2) – page 171 A.F./218 R.;
Rep.198 – Hair formation found between the lower cornice of the left window shutter having the broken glass, indicated in the evidence photographs with the letter “R”, (report of the evidence described carried out by the Gabinetto Provinciale of Forensic Police of Perugia) – page 172 A.F./239 R.;
Rep.199 – Sample of presumed blood substance taken of the portion of the wood of the window having the broken glass, indicated in the evidence photographs by the letter “S”,
(report of the evidence described carried out by the Gabinetto Provinciale of the Forensic Police of Perugia) – page 172 A.F./239 R.;

That is it, 5 whole items. If it was a burglary and the room ransacked and the clothes scattered everywhere, that would mean the burglar probably touched the clothes and other items scattered around. It would seem common sense to ask FR what items were not in the position she left them in and then test those items. We know the rock was handled by the burglar/stager, but no result on that one. We do know that Filomena indicated one item that had changed position and that was her computer. If the burglar that left the presumed blood substance on the broken window, they could have left a trace of blood or DNA on the computer. Of course, the crack team let Filomena in to take her computer, failed to take pictures of the glass on clothes, and as far as I can tell, failed to ask her a simple question of what is different from how you left it?

 

[snook1]

Once again, common sense and logical thinking, that's what the police in Perugia(and the guilters) that handled the investigation, lacks. Big time. Thank you, Rose, for pointing this out.

 

[RoseMontague]

Once again, common sense and logical thinking, that's what the police in Perugia(and the guilters) that handled the investigation, lacks. Big time. Thank you, Rose, for pointing this out.

What is even more a mind-boggletation here is that they did not even test the rock until the defense insisted on it. I doubt Stefi really tried very hard to find anything, same with reps 198/199.

 

[madrigal]

The facts are:
1) the court was working just on the identical data report already submitted by the defnce that the Massei court had. The "new" updates brought in the Appeals contain no relevant information, anyway they were not admitted by Hellmann's court so they cannot be in their motivations
2) there is no data in the report that could demonstrate a period of human activity; the screeensaver logs is a ridiculous datum, many automatic application would produce those logs
3) traces of human activites in Raffaele's apartment do not work as an alibi for the night, especially not an alibi valid for two, both liars and unreliable


conclusion: nothing is "compelling" in these data.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[madrigal]

You have to accept that Amanda is a proven liar.

Right from the start she..

1) Lied about Mez's door always being closed.

2) Lied about Mez being a close friend of hers.


All the witnesses testified under oath otherwise...THEY told the truth!

 

[Kaosium]

There will never be any blame on Mignini for "wrongfully prosecuting" Knox and Sollecito. Even Claudio Pratillo Hellmann himself stated the prosecution could not be criticized, and that the suspects were rightfully prosecuted. Moreover a large number of judges and magistrates had authored a conclusion of guilt on Raffaele and Amanda, in no way the "blame" could fall on Mignini.

I wonder if that quote by Hellmann, which I cannot recall precisely, was more relevant to standards in Italy for 'evidence' to begin an investigation being so low? How did he put it again?

I've said before that there was enough coincidental and mistaken 'evidence' available to the police by November 5th that I'd have had a talk with Amanda as well if I were them, as some things did look suspicious.

The point was if Rudy Guede gets off it won't be Raffaele and Amanda's fault for not being convicted unjustly. If you absolve Mignini, where should the blame fall then?

 

[Kaosium]

The preliminary judge drop the charge since there is absolutely no evidence he committed a burglary. They only found evidence he did not do it.

Does that mean the charge was never really tried in court then and thus could be pressed again?