Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Grinder]

The Massei site on the lamp was posted days ago. The fact some PIP here didn't know that, is of no significance except that for person's credibility I suppose. The fact that a PGP didn't see it goes to their sincerity in this discussion.

Not even Massei considered it significant.

 

[yimyammer]

It can be proven that Rudi locked the door. The shoe print does prove he did not lock the door.

I'm confused, is this a typo?

 

[anglolawyer]

The Massei site on the lamp was posted days ago. The fact some PIP here didn't know that, is of no significance except that for person's credibility I suppose. The fact that a PGP didn't see it goes to their sincerity in this discussion.

Not even Massei considered it significant.

Quite. He made no finding at all about the lamp, which is very odd. No PGP has ever succeeded in identifying any other equally significant item of evidence that was just ignored in the way the lamp was. The Massei report is a comprehensive summary of the whole of the evidence, like a judge's summing up to a jury but with the addition of a reasoned verdict. The lamp is wholly ignored in the verdict. It would have been better if Massei had said:

'Since the PM has failed to advance any positive case on the lamp, we take no account of it in reaching our verdict.'

A random question lobbed at a defendant in cross examination is, of course, not a positive case but it's all Mignini had (apart from the improper cartoon). Those who dispute the theory that Battistelli (or some other cop) introduced it need to explain that.

 

[Grinder]

I'm confused, is this a typo?

Yes thank you for asking. It's another price we pay for being moderated, no editing.

It can not be proven that Rudi locked the door or for that matter anybody else specifically. It was locked. We know that and that's all we know.

Although I think the lamp is another red herring, and I'm sure Anglo has covered this, I wonder how the lamp would have ended up behind the door? It would have to have been placed against the wall, which would not be where someone would place it for illumination. If it was moved there before closing the door and the mover was a perp that didn't want to forget it, one would think that would help remind them.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium

Just thinking about one point in your long post above - on the supposed impossibility of determining whose DNA it is in a mixed DNA plus somebody's blood scenario. Why is this impossible? The blood owner's DNA is contained in their white blood cells I thought. Just take a sample, lay it out on a petrie dish and look at the cells. Note and find a way to separate the distinct white cells (centrifuge, magnets, tweezers, whatever) and proceed to extraction etc.

If no one else has thought of this btw. the Nobel prize goes to me. But what's wrong with it?

They didn't do anything like that, watch the videos.


What is meant by what Stefanoni & Massei both allowed is that if you take a sample by wiping around with a swab and then extract it, which amounts to putting a portion of the swab into a tube and using chemicals to identify all DNA on the swab, if you get two profiles you have no real idea just exactly what and where that DNA came from, outside that it was on that swab.

The sample collected on the swab tested positive for blood, being as it had Meredith's blood on it, however being as it was wiped out of Amanda's sink and they were NOT very precise about it, they pretty much ensured they'd get a sample from both Meredith and Amanda. Since one would expect to get a sample of Amanda's DNA out of Amanda's sink (swabbing it that way at least) regardless of whether there was anything else there, that's virtually meaningless for forensic purposes.

 

[Bill Williams]

You are aware they were found GUILTY, and as of right now, they are still guilty going into appeal.

Acc. to Italian law they have not been found guilyu unyil the Supreme Court signs off on a guilty verdict.

And until we receive the March 26 2013 Supreme Court's motivations report, we don't know why the case has been sent back to the Appeals level in Florence.

The supreme Vourt could be directing the lower court to come to some fact finding on what the SC regards as a conflict - for instance, is there one or more attackers?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

All three of the luminol prints in the hallway are right feet. Where are the left feet? In addition, the forensic police wore one piece gowns. I don't recall seeing them with booties over the foot section of their white (tyvek?) gowns.

I guess they only had blood on their right foot then, like Rudi had it on only his left shoe, because that reacts with blood those are the ones we see, but I know you already know this........ Yes, the forensic police wore booties that were changed whenever leaving a room, Step testified to this and also, if you remember Amanda, doing her dance and 'Ta dah' after putting on the booties....

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

 

[Rolfe]

Kaosium

Just thinking about one point in your long post above - on the supposed impossibility of determining whose DNA it is in a mixed DNA plus somebody's blood scenario. Why is this impossible? The blood owner's DNA is contained in their white blood cells I thought. Just take a sample, lay it out on a petrie dish and look at the cells. Note and find a way to separate the distinct white cells (centrifuge, magnets, tweezers, whatever) and proceed to extraction etc.

If no one else has thought of this btw. the Nobel prize goes to me. But what's wrong with it?

The bolded bit, just for a start. I don't think you have any idea how small these objects are.

Rolfe.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well sure ...so Kokomaniac locked the door. Does that satisfy you ? I understand that you don't believe Knox murdered Kercher...so please lets cut to the chase...what do you think happened? Please try to keep that story inside the facts.

Guede could have likely returned to the murder room 10 times. In fact he had the keys (stolen from Kerchers purse) to the boys section downstairs. Perhaps the police should have carefully examined this area rather than kicking out the window and destroying that scene. Who knows...maybe they would have discovered why the flip flops were still wet after 3 days. Or why cats blood was on the wall and light switch. Or why the one persons bed was stripped and the bloody sheets were tossed up near the head board.

That all could have been Kokomaniac...just one problem though...there is no evidence to support that. Kinda like there is no evidence to support AK and RS being involved in a murder committed by Rudy Guede alone...of which there is ample evidence cept for the weakest of minds....

It's not meant to satisfy me, it's meant to satisfy you and your brothern. I quite convinced I know who locked that door.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If Rudy only stepped in blood accidentally as the last thing he did before leaving, then the Luminol has no bearing on his whereabouts in the house before that moment.

Exactly, and since the left blood shoe prints leads to the front door, and doesn't return, even when examined with Lumina, what does that tell you?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm confused, is this a typo?

It must be, I'm sure he meant to type 'can't' instead of 'can'.

 

[yimyammer]

Well sure ...so Kokomaniac locked the door. Does that satisfy you ? I understand that you don't believe Knox murdered Kercher...so please lets cut to the chase...what do you think happened? Please try to keep that story inside the facts.

Guede could have likely returned to the murder room 10 times. In fact he had the keys (stolen from Kerchers purse) to the boys section downstairs. Perhaps the police should have carefully examined this area rather than kicking out the window and destroying that scene. Who knows...maybe they would have discovered why the flip flops were still wet after 3 days. Or why cats blood was on the wall and light switch. Or why the one persons bed was stripped and the bloody sheets were tossed up near the head board.

That all could have been Kokomaniac...just one problem though...there is no evidence to support that. Kinda like there is no evidence to support AK and RS being involved in a murder committed by Rudy Guede alone...of which there is ample evidence cept for the weakest of minds....

what's this all about? I've heard this mentioned in passing over the years but I've never read any primary sources. This seems really strange to not be addressed if it occurred at the same time. Are you saying there were bloody sheets in the downstairs flat?

 

[yimyammer]

the other contributors to the bra clasp (only a tiny fraction of their malfeasance and idiocy in this case) on what possible basis could you contend that the prosecution presented all evidence they collected in court and were not selective in what they chose in making their case or incorrectly evaluated what they did?

I read the link above to the C&V report above and now have a head ache.

Am I reading it correctly in that its saying Raf's DNA was found but because of the procedures used and risks of contamination, it can't be concluded that Raf's DNA was not there because of contamination?

It didn't sound like they were saying it wasn't Raf's DNA or a Y-?? compatible with in 4 males like I thought I read upthread. Is this correct?

thanks for any help you can provide in aiding me to wrap my head around the language and jargon of this subject matter

 

[Antony]

You are aware they were found GUILTY, and as of right now, they are still guilty going into appeal.

Of course everyone here is aware of the current status of court decisions.

The whole point of this discussion is the question of whether the various court decisions are justified by the facts. There is nothing gained by referring to the opinion of the various judges, which, be they with legal force, still remain opinions.

 

[acbytesla]

I've no doubt that they happen from time to time and there is even a small chance that it has happened here as well, but I have to go with the odds, and they are vastly against Amanda and Raff. There never was a 'pact', and Rudy had no real history of violent crime either, but we agree what he was capable of I'm sure.


They are all important, and when taken all together, insurmountable. Rudy locking the door kind of bugs me a bit more, saying it can be done is not a valid answer. Rudy just committed a murder, he's likely in a dark hallway with a set of keys he's never seen before, locking a door without turning around to face the lock or even swivel a bit towards the door and lock, sorry, but no way he locked that door, someone else did.

Nobody can stop you from having your opinion. After all, it is yours. But I'm curious about one thing though Sherlock. Do you think there is enough evidence to prove your opinion beyond a reasonable doubt?

Because from my perspective your opinion has little or no actual evidence that would convince a jury to the standards necessary to convict someone.

 

[Locknar]

Folks, after discussion within the Mod Team I have decided (for better or worse) to remove this thread from Moderated status. That stated, please keep your Membership Agreement in mind when posting and ensure your post is civil/polite, on-topic, and addresses the argument (yes, the other rules apply as well, but rule 0, rule 11 and rule 12 are typically the ones that get folks in trouble the most).

If things get out of hand...back on Moderated status it goes.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[anglolawyer]

The bolded bit, just for a start. I don't think you have any idea how small these objects are.

Rolfe.

So? Are you saying it's impossible? Here's an image. They look pretty big to me.

Also, here is a slide from C-V report showing there cytological examination of their own samples taken from the knife. Is there really no way known to man (or woman) to separate cells of different types?

ETA thank you mods!

 

[Malkmus]

Exactly, and since the left blood shoe prints leads to the front door, and doesn't return, even when examined with Lumina, what does that tell you?

It tells me that that we're seeing only one of Rudy's actions for that specific moment in time. It doesn't tell us what he did before or after.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Nobody can stop you from having your opinion. After all, it is yours. But I'm curious about one thing though Sherlock. Do you think there is enough evidence to prove your opinion beyond a reasonable doubt?

Because from my perspective your opinion has little or no actual evidence that would convince a jury to the standards necessary to convict someone.

There is not enough evidence to prove anything in this case - one of the reasons it is kind of funny listening to the Foakers have it out with the Guiters. If this case is ever solved beyond a reasonable doubt (which it won't), then you will find the FOAKERs and the Guitars had some points each right, and the truth lied somewhere in between.

Saying my opinion has little or no actual evidence that would convince a jury is wrong, my opinion is supported by more evidence than Amanda and Raff stayed home all night and were not even remotely involved. My opinion is exactly where the evidence lies, I do not expect any FOAKER or Guilter to agree with that though.

 

[anglolawyer]

Reasonable doubt

The meaning of 'reasonable doubt' was recently elaborated by Mr Justice Sweeney in the trial of the century involving Vicky Pryce. She was charged with admitting a driving offence her husband had committed to save him from a driving ban. Sweeney was a Queen's Counsel (senior barrister) before elevation to the High Court bench, only one level below the Court of Appeal where he will surely end up. In answer to a juror's question he said: 'reasonable doubt means a doubt that is reasonable' - which must have cleared things up considerably

In Math on Trial the authors express things differently:

AMANDA’S AND Raffaele’s lawyers immediately lodged an appeal. There were some grounds: by some unfortunate coincidence it seemed as though each and every piece of evidence used to convict the pair was flawed in some way or another.
A bloody footprint on the bathmat seemed to fit Raffaele’s foot, but the identification could not be certain.

His DNA was found on the ripped- off clasp of Meredith’s bra, but that clasp had been forgotten in the murder room during the first forensic inspection. Between then and the time it was collected from the floor forty-six days later, objects had been carried in and out of the room, bringing a possibility of contamination from the forensic technicians’ shoe covers every time.

A witness who claimed he saw the pair talking animatedly in a little square overlooking the cottage gate the evening of the murder said it was the night of Halloween instead of November 1.
Another claimed, a year after the murder, that he had seen Amanda in his little grocery store at eight o’clock in the morning on November 2, but it turned out that he had failed to identify her when the police showed him photos of her in the days following the murder.
Two witnesses, in addition to Rudy Guede, told of hearing a terri- ble scream from the cottage on the night of the murder,
but none of them could really say what time they had heard it.*

A broken-down car had been parked in front of the gate leading to the cottage from 10: 30 p.m. to about 11: 30 p.m., during which time a tow truck had come to make repairs, yet none of the people involved had seen a light or heard any sound from the cottage or spotted anyone going in or out.

So, there we have it, a doubt that is reasonable or an unfortunate coincidence? You decide.