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

[RandyN]

ok, so answer me this: Why would Knox think that the body of the victim was found in the closet unless she had firsthand knowledge the body was in the closet at some point. it she was just assuming the locaaton of the body, why wouldn't the logical assumption be that the victim was found in the room on the floor or on her bed. Knox was not withing sight of the room as several people testified, neither was her boyfriend, and nobody would have told the two of them that the body was found in the closet, b/c the body was not found in the closet. you cannot explain this away. it makes no sense. Knox tries to blame her lack of understanding of Italian for her curious statement but then she said Raff told her this info but he understands Italian and nobody told him about a body being found in a c loset because no body was found in the closet.

the police found that the victim was killed in the closet, and later moved to the middle of the room. ,you guys wont' admit the burglarly is staged and that is so obvious, so I have no expectation you'd ever admit the body was arranged to play up the rape.

The body was never in the closet...in fact that would be impossible if you actually looked at the closet. You ever consider the English gals may have been confused about what Knox said? After all these same gals couldn't agree what time they had eaten with Meredith the night she was murdered. And they were there.

Luca Altieri rode with AK and RS to the police station. He did see into the room and may have explained that the body appeared near the closet or at least that's what Knox limited Italian was able to decipher. I simply dont understand what point you think you are making here. Knox knew what? The body was not in the closet and so thats why she said it was in the closet? Thats nuts.

The police never claimed the victim was killed in the closet. But go ahead...make a case for that and provide facts that show that happened.

Guede attacked Kercher near her bed. He yanked her to the floor by pulling her backward and off balance most likely by grabbing a hand full of her hair and ripping her backwards. Evidence indicates this happened. Bruised elbows and head would be factors that show this.

Kercher was dealt the fatal wound near the closet. The blood evidence proves this beyond doubt.

Guede then drags Miss Kercher to the middle of the room...probably dragging her by the bra strap. The reason was get her out of the vast amount of pooling blood. He didn't want to get himself dirty. Kercher is still alive but not likely to be conscious. In fact the turning and rolling to remove her clothes probably kept her alive a bit longer since blood could drain from her airway. Once he rolled her onto her back she would have aspirated blood into the lungs and the cough reflex would have attempted to clear the airway...thus the droplets on her bare breasts. These are real facts found in the crime scene photos and the autopsy report.

I would be happy to admit the burglary was staged. What do you find as convincing proof of that staging? Because the facts seem to strongly indicate no staging at all. The rock was thrown from the outside ...your suggestion that it was from the inside is against the laws of physics if you study the crime scene. And BTW there is no photo showing even one piece of glass on top of any clothing. This is a lie of the prosecutor. Prove there is glass on top.

This climb would be simple. I agree it was a terrible mistake of the defense to not show this...but then again I think the defense did a crappy job altogether. They were no good and mostly sat mute...cowering in fear of calunna I suspect. The defendants could have won the appeal without any defense input. The case is really that bad. All it took were honest judges who would not allow prosecution shenanigans to go unnoticed.

Its why you even today 5 years later cant make a time line that fits facts and proves guilt. Not just you but no pro guilt person even attempts to do this. And there is a good reason for that...because its impossible.

You attempt to make a case with illogical argument...the body in the closet for example. The staged break-in as another. Ok lets say you are correct...the break-in was staged. Who did it and why?

Guedes DNA may well have been in Filomenas room...after all they did not find Filomena DNA in her own room either...so what does that say about the price of tea in China?

PS...there is missing hair and blood sample from the window area...it appears the police lost this evidence somewhere, somehow....hummmm

 

[DrTesla]

GM: We can go backwards later. Did you see Meredith's room?

AK: No.

GM: Did you get a glimpse?

AK: No.

GM: Where were you?

AK: I was near the entrance, in the living room.

GM: Sollecito was with you?

AK: Yes.

GM: So he didn't see either.

AK: He didn't either.

GM: From what Frost, Meredith's friend, said, and the others, we heard that you, or Sollecito, claimed to have seen the body in the closet, covered with a sheet, and nothing could be seen but a foot. Now if you hadn't seen the room, and Raffaele hadn't seen it either, how could you make this observation? How could you -- I'm asking another question -- and how could this closet contain Meredith's body? You know the closet, right? I have a black and white photo of it here. Here. This closet.

AK: All right. Firstly, I think Frost made a little mistake, because I never said that I saw Meredith's body in the closet. I said that I had heard people around me saying that there was a body in the closet, that was covered, with a foot sticking out. I too was confused by this, but that's what I heard. But when people kept on asking me what happened, what they had found, I answered what I had heard.

GM: Or what Raffaele told you.

AK: Raffaele, or the people he was asking for me.

...

GM: So, who were these people who said this to Raffaele?

AK: We were all asking each other, because there was Filomena's friend, who had maybe obviously heard it from the police, but it's not like a followed exactly where the information was coming from. Everyone was talking. Everyone was giving explanations and versions and information, and I kept turning to Raffaele because at least he understood the language. I didn't even understand...

GM: Raffaele didn't tell you who told him?

AK: No, but he was explaining to me above all what I asked him: what happened, what was in the room, those things.

GM: I'm asking you, but if you don't know, just tell me: did he say to you "Filomena told me" or "such-and-such told me", Altieri, the tall girl, the others that were there that saw into the room. There was no girl in the closet. Did he tell you who told him that? That there was a girl inside the closet?

AK: No, he didn't tell me who said that. It was the people around.

 

[DrTesla]

from http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...Details_of_the_Crime_She_Shouldn't_Have_Known

"Amanda Knox made two statements to Meredith's friends that the police found suspicious because they contained details that Amanda Knox should not have known.
The first was that she knew Meredith had been killed by the closet. Meredith's body was in the middle of the room and her body was covered with a duvet. When Knox said that Meredith was killed in the closet nobody except the killers knew that. Amanda Knox knew that so it follows that she had to have participated in the attack.
The second statement is with respect to Meredith's death being drawn out. Natalie Hayward a friend of Meredith's expressed that she hoped Meredith had gone quickly and not suffered. Amanda shot back with "What do you think? She ****'en bled to death." Besides being a callous statement it clearly indicates that Knox knew that Meredith took a long time and that she suffered. This is true and someone who participated in the murder would know that. Why a innocent friend would know or say this is really difficult to explain.

The issue with the closet is much more damaging to the claim that Knox was not involved in the murder. There is no way to explain Knox having this information. Knox and Sollecito moved to the kitchen just as Luca was about to force open the door. That in itself could be interpreted as them knowing what was about to be discovered and wanting to distance themselves but it also means that they couldn't see anything. Had they been in the hallway the situation was not much better. The body was covered by a duvet in a dark room and all that was exposed was a single foot. When the police arrived they removed the duvet sufficiently to confirm that Meredith was dead but once that was established the duvet was restored and the body remained covered until nearly midnight. It was only at midnight that the body was finally uncovered and examined and only then would it have been clear that Meredith had been dragged from the closest to where her body was discovered.


There is no way that Amanda Knox at the police station could have come to know this information. Knox's explanation that she learned this information from Raffaele is not believable. She can't give any details of who told Raffaele why only she out of everyone in the police station was privy to this information. Since Raffaele had already announced that he would not testify naming him as the source was rather convenient. Under the Italian system defendants even if they choose to not testify are free to make spontaneous statements. Sollecito at made a small number of these statements throughout the trial but here where he could have said something to rescue Amanda he choose to remain silent.

 

[RandyN]

Can you provide just one source that reports Mignini or another member of the prosecution stating they didn't want this semen stain tested, and why? Can you cite one source that quotes the defense lawyers talking about this? I can't seem to anything about outside of Bryan's Fischer's website so I'm starting to think it's not credible.

i'm not sure how the semen stain makes all the evidence against the two go away. again, if it's raffe's, he's guilty. if it's Rudy's, so what? we know he was involved. if it the victim's boyfriend, that would make sense, and he has an alibi. if it is somebody else, wouldn't that defy your insistence only Rudy committed this crime?

Check with Frank Sfarzo...he was in court every day. I am fairly certain it is covered in an article on his site. You will need permission to access his site.

As for the why? Who knows. Why did they object to the opening of the knife handle? I find that objection by Mignini et al to be far more revealing. Was he afraid that nothing would be found and so it was better to keep that unknown so as to keep up the illusion that he actually had a case? I think so. Nothing else justifies that reaction...

You can look that one up yourself...during the appeal when C and V were chosen as independent experts.

If you expect cites for everything dont be surprised if others start asking you for cites for you wilder claims...like the police said Kercher was murdered in the closet for example.

 

[DrTesla]

the point is, why was Knox talking about a closet, period. The body was not found in the closet. nobody who saw into that room would have talked about the closet, period. knox loves to play up her not understanding Italian when it's convenient but it is irrelevant here, nobody talked about the closet, and it is not logical to assume the victim was killed in the closet or that her body was in the closet at any point. everybody would assume the body was just in the room, either on the bed or on the floor.

so why the heck is Knox talking about the closet? you can't run away from this.

 

[DrTesla]

Check with Frank Sfarzo...he was in court every day. I am fairly certain it is covered in an article on his site. You will need permission to access his site.

As for the why? Who knows. Why did they object to the opening of the knife handle? I find that objection by Mignini et al to be far more revealing. Was he afraid that nothing would be found and so it was better to keep that unknown so as to keep up the illusion that he actually had a case? I think so. Nothing else justifies that reaction...

You can look that one up yourself...during the appeal when C and V were chosen as independent experts.

If you expect cites for everything dont be surprised if others start asking you for cites for you wilder claims...like the police said Kercher was murdered in the closet for example.

I question how independent C and V were. I wouldn't doubt if they both received a large sum of money from Raff's rich daddy. I never heard of a trial where the judge decides "independence" of experts, usually the prosecution will have their experts, and the defense will have theirs, and the jury then decides who made the better case. in the only trial where this happened, the jury found Knox guilty. all 8 of them.

The police DIDN"T tell anybody that Meridith was murdered in the closet b/c they did not know it at the time, yet Knox said the body was found in the closet when the body was found in the room. You think you are slick and you can spin this but you really are damaging yourself in terms of credidibliy.

how do you assert a body is found in a closet if you don't know something about the murder and there is on reason to assume it was in the closet? nobody who saw in the room would have said it was in the closet b/c it wasn't in the closet.

 

[RandyN]

from http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...Details_of_the_Crime_She_Shouldn't_Have_Known

"Amanda Knox made two statements to Meredith's friends that the police found suspicious because they contained details that Amanda Knox should not have known.
The first was that she knew Meredith had been killed by the closet. Meredith's body was in the middle of the room and her body was covered with a duvet. When Knox said that Meredith was killed in the closet nobody except the killers knew that. Amanda Knox knew that so it follows that she had to have participated in the attack.
The second statement is with respect to Meredith's death being drawn out. Natalie Hayward a friend of Meredith's expressed that she hoped Meredith had gone quickly and not suffered. Amanda shot back with "What do you think? She ****'en bled to death." Besides being a callous statement it clearly indicates that Knox knew that Meredith took a long time and that she suffered. This is true and someone who participated in the murder would know that. Why a innocent friend would know or say this is really difficult to explain.

The issue with the closet is much more damaging to the claim that Knox was not involved in the murder. There is no way to explain Knox having this information. Knox and Sollecito moved to the kitchen just as Luca was about to force open the door. That in itself could be interpreted as them knowing what was about to be discovered and wanting to distance themselves but it also means that they couldn't see anything. Had they been in the hallway the situation was not much better. The body was covered by a duvet in a dark room and all that was exposed was a single foot. When the police arrived they removed the duvet sufficiently to confirm that Meredith was dead but once that was established the duvet was restored and the body remained covered until nearly midnight. It was only at midnight that the body was finally uncovered and examined and only then would it have been clear that Meredith had been dragged from the closest to where her body was discovered.


There is no way that Amanda Knox at the police station could have come to know this information. Knox's explanation that she learned this information from Raffaele is not believable. She can't give any details of who told Raffaele why only she out of everyone in the police station was privy to this information. Since Raffaele had already announced that he would not testify naming him as the source was rather convenient. Under the Italian system defendants even if they choose to not testify are free to make spontaneous statements. Sollecito at made a small number of these statements throughout the trial but here where he could have said something to rescue Amanda he choose to remain silent.

I dont think you are reading my posts...I answered you in post number 2181.

Kercher was not killed in the closet. It was a small room so she of course had to be near the closet always.

Knox repeated what she heard as they all stood around for hours outside the cottage. Luca also saw the postal police enter Kerchers room. The police deny that in court but Luca and his girlfriend testify that he is lying.

If Knox claimed Kerchers death was drawn out (cite please) she would have been wrong. Facts indicate that death was rather quick. Its what happens when all the blood leaves the body thru the large hole cut in the neck. Death and a rather quick one at that.

 

[DrTesla]

from Barbie Nadaeu:

Amanda also told both Amy and Meredith’s friend Robyn Butterworth that she had seen Meredith’s body inside the closet and covered with her duvet. Amanda “kept talking about how she had found Meredith,” Robyn recalled. “She sounded proud that she had been the first to find her.” Robyn soon quit speaking to Amanda.

Meredith’s friends validated what the police were already thinking. They had also been observing the young American’s curious behavior. She was, to them, so detached from the situation around her that they wondered, at times, if she was perhaps psychologically disturbed or in shock from the murder. They decided to tap her and Raffaele’s phones and heard Amanda say on November 4, just three days after the murder, “I can’t take it anymore.”

 

[DrTesla]

I dont think you are reading my posts...I answered you in post number 2181.

Kercher was not killed in the closet. It was a small room so she of course had to be near the closet always.

Knox repeated what she heard as they all stood around for hours outside the cottage. Luca also saw the postal police enter Kerchers room. The police deny that in court but Luca and his girlfriend testify that he is lying.

If Knox claimed Kerchers death was drawn out (cite please) she would have been wrong. Facts indicate that death was rather quick. Its what happens when all the blood leaves the body thru the large hole cut in the neck. Death and a rather quick one at that.

it's convenient for you to say that the victim was not killed in the closet, bug she was killed in the closet. her body was later moved to the middle of the room.

again, even if she was not killed in the closet, why would Knox be claiming that she was in the closet? That makes no sense. You try to make me out as the nut, but clelary Knox is the nut if she's talking about a body being found in a closet, a body she supposedly never saw, and there's no reason to believe anybody who did see it said it was in the closet. you have to be real gullible if this doesn't perk your ears up as incriminating.

lol, the investigators believe it took the victim quite awhile to die b/c she died from suffocating on her own blood as it went down her windpipe as well as from the loss of blood. it was no quick death. you again are lying about the results of the autopsy to make your case for Knox's innocence. what innocent person is going to say what Knox did anyway, it is much mor elogical she said stuff like that and was acting weird in general b/c she was guilty. if her behavior was not crying or something like that, we could dismiss it, but her behvoir and statements after the murder just don't look like innocence. you just can't spin that all away. at best, this girl did not participate in the murder but she has some real pyshcological issues.

 

[Grinder]

From Massei -At the hearing of December 4 the Defence for Sollecito concluded the rebuttals, submitting a memorandum evidencing that on the site of the inspection of May 25, 2009, on the pillowcase of the pillow found in the victim’s room some stains had
22
been found with the ‚crimescope‛ that could have been spermatic in nature and that these had not been the object of any genetic analysis. In relation to this contention, various questions were raised as to the necessity of testing relative to these stains

and more

In this regard, what has been previously observed on the subject is called to mind; with specific reference to the stains found on the pillowcase, particular mention of which was made by Sollecito’s defence *team+ during the trial and in the related illustrative memorandum, the following should be noted: even if a genetic investigation established the spermatic nature of these stains, such an investigation, as a rule, would not allow these stains to be dated and, in particular, it would not be possible to establish that they had been deposited on the night on which Meredith was killed. It having furthermore been established that Meredith had an active sexual life and at times had intercourse in her own room (cf. on this point the statements of her boyfriend Giacomo Silenzi) such an investigation, besides not being of a strictly necessary nature due to the impossibility of dating [i.e. establishing the date] (cf. what was elucidated on this aspect by the genetic experts), might also yield an entirely irrelevant outcome even for establishing the spermatic nature of those very stains and seems to be, therefore, a purely explorative activity, [which] is not permitted at this stage of the proceedings because it is lacking in the requirement for absolute necessity which was, on the contrary, requested.

 

[DrTesla]

From Massei -At the hearing of December 4 the Defence for Sollecito concluded the rebuttals, submitting a memorandum evidencing that on the site of the inspection of May 25, 2009, on the pillowcase of the pillow found in the victim’s room some stains had
22
been found with the ‚crimescope‛ that could have been spermatic in nature and that these had not been the object of any genetic analysis. In relation to this contention, various questions were raised as to the necessity of testing relative to these stains

and more

In this regard, what has been previously observed on the subject is called to mind; with specific reference to the stains found on the pillowcase, particular mention of which was made by Sollecito’s defence *team+ during the trial and in the related illustrative memorandum, the following should be noted: even if a genetic investigation established the spermatic nature of these stains, such an investigation, as a rule, would not allow these stains to be dated and, in particular, it would not be possible to establish that they had been deposited on the night on which Meredith was killed. It having furthermore been established that Meredith had an active sexual life and at times had intercourse in her own room (cf. on this point the statements of her boyfriend Giacomo Silenzi) such an investigation, besides not being of a strictly necessary nature due to the impossibility of dating [i.e. establishing the date] (cf. what was elucidated on this aspect by the genetic experts), might also yield an entirely irrelevant outcome even for establishing the spermatic nature of those very stains and seems to be, therefore, a purely explorative activity, [which] is not permitted at this stage of the proceedings because it is lacking in the requirement for absolute necessity which was, on the contrary, requested.

grinder, thanks for digging that up, it was starting to look like Fischer had just made the whole thing up about the sperm stain. given the fact he still claims Mignin was found guilty of abuse of power on his website and does not mention that was overturned by the Supreme Court, I don't trust anything I read there.

ok, so they are saying there is no way the stains could have been dated to the night of the murder so they would have little weight. I don't agree with that b/c if it was Rudy or Raffe we know it was the night of the murder b/c there is no plausible reason why either of them would have been there at any other time. if it was the boyfriend, we know he has an an alibi and we could rule him out the night of the murder.

I don't see how any result of testing this "sperm" stain could have dismissed the already overwhelming evidence against Knox and raff, so this is another classic false choice but forth by the Friends. They seem to advance the notion that if it was Rudy's sperm on the pillow, we must Knox and Raff free, which makes no sense. Nobody denies Rudy's involvement in the murder and the prosecution theory is headlined by the idea that he was the sexual aggressor of the 3, and the other 2 were the knifers. it seems like the defense would have much risk in testing this sperm than the prosecution, and it almost reeks of desperation if they were sincere about wanting it tested. I suspect that they were not and only brought it up at the last minute when they knew it would be rejected, so they could introduce this straw man about how the prosecution feared it, which doesn't make any sense. what could they fear about any of the 3 likely people it could have been attributed to, Rudy, Raffe, victim's boyfriend?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

lol, I could make the same silly accusation of you. you guys don't ever explain anything, you have no rational answer for Amanda's lamp in the room on the floor, no answer for how she could have know the victim was in the closet at one point, no answer for how the victim's blood was on the blade of the knife found at raffe's house, no answer for how raffe's dna was found on the bra clasp of the victim, you have no evidence that rudy came through that window which would be a most illogical entry point. knox was challenged on almost every assertion that she made and her story consistently doesn't check out when compared to the cell phone record, other people's testimonies, physical evidence, and an understanding of human psychology. you guys are the Cult of Bryan Fischer, you parrot his dumb claims on here that any lawyer would eat up in court.

We have explained many, many things to you already. The problem appears to be that you are not taking these explanations on board and altering your perception of reality.

The victim never was in the closet, so someone saying they were in the closet does not indicate they had any special knowledge of the state of the murder room. The opposite, if anything.

There is no reason to believe the victims's blood was ever on the blade of the knife found at Raffaele's house. This was revealed by the independent investigators during the appeal. There was a claimed DNA match which could not be replicated, but there was also starch on the blade and no signs whatsoever of blood on the blade, showing that it had not been cleaned. The knife was just a kitchen knife unrelated to the murder.

We just explained to you a second ago that the bra clasp was definitely contaminated at some point, which is enough to destroy its value as evidence anyway, and on top of that the trace found could not be decisively linked to Raffaele rather than any number of other men.

There's no proof of a staged burglary, or even any positive evidence of a staged burglary. There's just a whole ton of evidence consistent with a burglary gone wrong, where the burglar was surprised by an occupant before they could complete the burglary, the burglar fatally stabbed and raped the occupant, and then the burglar decided to clean up and flee with some money and mobile phones rather than stick around to burgle the murder house thoroughly.

Amanda misremembered many things, and so did Raffaele, Filomena, Meredith's friends and the police. Human memory is very fallible. That doesn't change the fact that she has a very strong alibi for the time of death, she has no motive, and neither you not any other guilter has ever been able to tie together their mishmash of talking points into a single sane, coherent theory.

At this stage pretending that "we never explain anything" is so obviously factually false that I am at a loss for charitable explanations for making such a claim.

 

[GWCarver]

From Massei -At the hearing of December 4 the Defence for Sollecito concluded the rebuttals, submitting a memorandum evidencing that on the site of the inspection of May 25, 2009, on the pillowcase of the pillow found in the victim’s room some stains had
22
been found with the ‚crimescope‛ that could have been spermatic in nature and that these had not been the object of any genetic analysis. In relation to this contention, various questions were raised as to the necessity of testing relative to these stains

and more

In this regard, what has been previously observed on the subject is called to mind; with specific reference to the stains found on the pillowcase, particular mention of which was made by Sollecito’s defence *team+ during the trial and in the related illustrative memorandum, the following should be noted: even if a genetic investigation established the spermatic nature of these stains, such an investigation, as a rule, would not allow these stains to be dated and, in particular, it would not be possible to establish that they had been deposited on the night on which Meredith was killed. It having furthermore been established that Meredith had an active sexual life and at times had intercourse in her own room (cf. on this point the statements of her boyfriend Giacomo Silenzi) such an investigation, besides not being of a strictly necessary nature due to the impossibility of dating [i.e. establishing the date] (cf. what was elucidated on this aspect by the genetic experts), might also yield an entirely irrelevant outcome even for establishing the spermatic nature of those very stains and seems to be, therefore, a purely explorative activity, [which] is not permitted at this stage of the proceedings because it is lacking in the requirement for absolute necessity which was, on the contrary, requested.

Cool. Based on Massei's logic, none of the DNA evidence should be allowed because DNA can't be dated.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I dont think you are reading my posts...I answered you in post number 2181.

Kercher was not killed in the closet. It was a small room so she of course had to be near the closet always.

Knox repeated what she heard as they all stood around for hours outside the cottage. Luca also saw the postal police enter Kerchers room. The police deny that in court but Luca and his girlfriend testify that he is lying.

If Knox claimed Kerchers death was drawn out (cite please) she would have been wrong. Facts indicate that death was rather quick. Its what happens when all the blood leaves the body thru the large hole cut in the neck. Death and a rather quick one at that.

Quick once the final blow (cut to throat that was fatal), but no one knows how long or short the whole attack was.

 

[Prometheus]

We have explained many, many things to you already. The problem appears to be that you are not taking these explanations on board and altering your perception of reality.

The victim never was in the closet, so someone saying they were in the closet does not indicate they had any special knowledge of the state of the murder room. The opposite, if anything.

There is no reason to believe the victims's blood was ever on the blade of the knife found at Raffaele's house. This was revealed by the independent investigators during the appeal. There was a claimed DNA match which could not be replicated, but there was also starch on the blade and no signs whatsoever of blood on the blade, showing that it had not been cleaned. The knife was just a kitchen knife unrelated to the murder.

We just explained to you a second ago that the bra clasp was definitely contaminated at some point, which is enough to destroy its value as evidence anyway, and on top of that the trace found could not be decisively linked to Raffaele rather than any number of other men.

There's no proof of a staged burglary, or even any positive evidence of a staged burglary. There's just a whole ton of evidence consistent with a burglary gone wrong, where the burglar was surprised by an occupant before they could complete the burglary, the burglar fatally stabbed and raped the occupant, and then the burglar decided to clean up and flee with some money and mobile phones rather than stick around to burgle the murder house thoroughly.

Amanda misremembered many things, and so did Raffaele, Filomena, Meredith's friends and the police. Human memory is very fallible. That doesn't change the fact that she has a very strong alibi for the time of death, she has no motive, and neither you not any other guilter has ever been able to tie together their mishmash of talking points into a single sane, coherent theory.

At this stage pretending that "we never explain anything" is so obviously factually false that I am at a loss for charitable explanations for making such a claim.

Nom'd

 

[DrTesla]

We have explained many, many things to you already. The problem appears to be that you are not taking these explanations on board and altering your perception of reality.

The victim never was in the closet, so someone saying they were in the closet does not indicate they had any special knowledge of the state of the murder room. The opposite, if anything.

There is no reason to believe the victims's blood was ever on the blade of the knife found at Raffaele's house. This was revealed by the independent investigators during the appeal. There was a claimed DNA match which could not be replicated, but there was also starch on the blade and no signs whatsoever of blood on the blade, showing that it had not been cleaned. The knife was just a kitchen knife unrelated to the murder.

We just explained to you a second ago that the bra clasp was definitely contaminated at some point, which is enough to destroy its value as evidence anyway, and on top of that the trace found could not be decisively linked to Raffaele rather than any number of other men.

There's no proof of a staged burglary, or even any positive evidence of a staged burglary. There's just a whole ton of evidence consistent with a burglary gone wrong, where the burglar was surprised by an occupant before they could complete the burglary, the burglar fatally stabbed and raped the occupant, and then the burglar decided to clean up and flee with some money and mobile phones rather than stick around to burgle the murder house thoroughly.

Amanda misremembered many things, and so did Raffaele, Filomena, Meredith's friends and the police. Human memory is very fallible. That doesn't change the fact that she has a very strong alibi for the time of death, she has no motive, and neither you not any other guilter has ever been able to tie together their mishmash of talking points into a single sane, coherent theory.

At this stage pretending that "we never explain anything" is so obviously factually false that I am at a loss for charitable explanations for making such a claim.

she has a strong alibi? Her own boyfriend undercut her alibi real quickly at the station, which then led her to fasley accuse her boss. evne if her boyfriend was backing her up, he doesn't have one, b/c nothing backs him up on being home all night on the computer. if there was any truth they had strong alibis, never one of them would still be facing jail time. all the other people who the police questioned and who had strong alibis were sent on their way a long time ago.

Answer this, why would Knox tell one of the other girls at the station that she was the one who found the body, when we know that she and Raffe actually moved away when the bedroom door was broken down? Isn't it nuts to claim you are found a body if you didn't find the body? Add on top she claims it was in the closet, when it wasn't in the closet. You yourself has said the body was NEVER in the closet, so why is she talking about the closet. Again, we are to just accept she has a bad memory and things are confused. HOw is she majoring in creative writing if she gets things so confused so easily. Seems like a writer needs to have a good memory to know if her story writing isn't contradicting itself in various points.

how did Rudy decide to clean up if his bloody prints head straight to the door, and there's no evidence he ever returned? Wouldn't you at least flush your crap in the toilet if you returned? Wipe away your bloody prints? Why risk coming back and then not do that? You don't even put forth a logical way this could have happened.

Why would Rudy go through one of the girls' clothes? At that point, if the original point was to steal stuff, it seems kidn of amazing that he took nothing but the cell phones.

there's no way the bra clasp was contaminated. it never left the bedroom, and even if it got contaminated while moving from point a to point b in the bedroom, that's just as incriminating, b/c the dna must have still come from the bedroom where Raff had no business being. this was a sealed off crime scene, and nother other Raff DNA was found in the house outside of some on a cig in the kitchen.

 

[DrTesla]

Quick once the final blow (cut to throat that was fatal), but no one knows how long or short the whole attack was.

how would Knox know one way or another how long it took Meridith to die. She said it took forever for Meridith to die from getting her throat slit. I don't see how she could say this unless she saw Meridith die. she referenced CSI but I can't see a tv show consistently showing victims of a slit throat slowing dying as result. in those types of show death is almost always depicted as instantaneous, and in most cases, they just cut away from the scene after the perb draws his gun or raises his knife to stab.

 

[DrTesla]

Cool. Based on Massei's logic, none of the DNA evidence should be allowed because DNA can't be dated.

by your logic, DNA evidence can't count if there is any time delay b/t the murder and when the evidence is collected. So much for spring innocent people from jail 30 plus years later based on DNA evidence.

also, if something, like a bra clasp, is moved, even in a room that is sealed off, we cannot trust any positive DNA evidence. never mind that any of Raf's DNA in the victim's bedroom is incriminating so if attached to the bra clasp as it moved from point a to point b, he's just as guilty.

 

[DrTesla]

returning to this "sperm" stain, as I understand it as a non-lawyer, the defense can argue for something to be tested for DNA evidence. I assume the prosecution could argue against it, although I see no logical reason why they would have feared the sperm stain as it couldn't have hurt, only possibly helped incriminate Raff, but even if the prosecution argued against it, it's still the presiding judge's decision to accept it, or not accept it. I'm assuming that person is Massei, so unless you want to argue that Massei's decision on what to accept for testing is the same as the prosecution deciding what evidence is accepted for testing, you can't use this "sperm" stain not being tested as a weapon against the prosecution. It's not their call.

If you read the Massie report, it sounds like Massei decided not to accept it mostly b/c it was late in the process, and he didn't see it as a absolute necessity to find guilt or innonence. It's fair to disagree with him on that, but it doesn't sound like he ruled it out b/c of what the prosecution said about it. I don't agree with his point on dating b/c other information and constraints can help date the sperm, at least in terms of being deposited on the night of the murder, or prior to that, depending on who the evidence points to, unless it was some mysterious OTHER person that none of the other evidence had pointed to so far. the victim's boyfriend had a strong alibi and hard to believe it would have been anybody other than Raf, Rudy, or the victim's boyfriend.

Can any of you cite a source in which Mignini and the prosecution state specifically that they dont' want this "sperm" stain tested, and why? Outside of Bruce Fischer's website and the various sources that parrot him, I don't see anybody making this sperm thing a big deal. I think what they did is read the Massei report and see Massie's explanation for it and decided to blow it up into something it isn't.

 

[anglolawyer]

We have explained many, many things to you already. The problem appears to be that you are not taking these explanations on board and altering your perception of reality.

The victim never was in the closet, so someone saying they were in the closet does not indicate they had any special knowledge of the state of the murder room. The opposite, if anything.

There is no reason to believe the victims's blood was ever on the blade of the knife found at Raffaele's house. This was revealed by the independent investigators during the appeal. There was a claimed DNA match which could not be replicated, but there was also starch on the blade and no signs whatsoever of blood on the blade, showing that it had not been cleaned. The knife was just a kitchen knife unrelated to the murder.

We just explained to you a second ago that the bra clasp was definitely contaminated at some point, which is enough to destroy its value as evidence anyway, and on top of that the trace found could not be decisively linked to Raffaele rather than any number of other men.

There's no proof of a staged burglary, or even any positive evidence of a staged burglary. There's just a whole ton of evidence consistent with a burglary gone wrong, where the burglar was surprised by an occupant before they could complete the burglary, the burglar fatally stabbed and raped the occupant, and then the burglar decided to clean up and flee with some money and mobile phones rather than stick around to burgle the murder house thoroughly.

Amanda misremembered many things, and so did Raffaele, Filomena, Meredith's friends and the police. Human memory is very fallible. That doesn't change the fact that she has a very strong alibi for the time of death, she has no motive, and neither you not any other guilter has ever been able to tie together their mishmash of talking points into a single sane, coherent theory.

At this stage pretending that "we never explain anything" is so obviously factually false that I am at a loss for charitable explanations for making such a claim.

Great post. The discussion goes round and round rather than forward. The lamp should not be discussed until someone properly explains why Mignini did not elicit the evidence that would have been available of its presence had it really been there. He had at least four witnesses who could give that evidence. This is an extremely simple inferential point by no means beyond the grasp of the posters on this thread.

Similarly as regards the body in the closet. If she had said she found the body under a duvet lying on a pillow that would have been incriminating. That she said it was in the closet when it never was (she certainly was not killed in the closet) proves what? Innocence, if anything, but more likely shock and incomprehension.