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

[DrTesla]

That has nothing to do with what I said in response to your point that any lawyer could win against the defense arguments. The won the judge and jury over in the appeal and could very well win again at the next round.



So just incredulity, a conspiracy, and gut felling that they were not independent. Well, until your hopes become reality they are officially independent experts.



Because the prosecution played dirty and didn't disclose pertinent information regarding how the DNA was tested. So instead of just agreeing with one side, an impartial judge appointed experts belonging to neither side. It's rather simple. Personally I think independent experts should be hired all the time. Why allow experts that are hired specifically to argue for whichever side they are being paid by?



For the same reason you think Amanda or Raf did.



I never mentioned Rudy framing them via the lamp.



I've said this long ago on here before, but I'm of the opinion that Meredith had borrowed Amanda's lamp for her desk and that it fell off during the attack. Amanda was always at Raf's so I'm sure it wasn't a big deal to do so. I think if anyone needed to look under the bed they would have used a lamp already in the room.



Nor a good reason for someone to bring an outside lamp in just to look under the bed since there were already mobile lamps in there. I believe Meredith wanted more light on her desk for studying.



That's a possibility. But if the express purpose of the lamp was to search under the bed then that doesn't exclude Rudy.



He writes about getting towels to staunch the blood, so he admits to sticking around. You say it doesn't make sense for Rudy to bring a lamp in but then it shouldn't make sense for Amanda either. Why would she have more reason than he considering you have no idea why it was actually there.

You guys blame a conspiracy to frame Knox for this murder, so I can't see how you can have a problem with me suggesting that the DNA experts in the 2nd trial were not really independent. Again, this isn't how a criminal trial should be conducted. Judges shouldn't be determining experts who are independent and that seems to be a subjective thing, not something you can establish without any doubt. in my mind, a proper trial allows both defense and prosecution to pick their own experts, these experts testify, and the jury decides who they agree with more. a judge gettingtha to pick the dna experts is one that could be bought by people, such as Raff's rich doctor daddy, who in my opinion, was able to get Hellman, a labor judge, assigned to this case, somehow. Somethig about the entire appeals trial was odd, b/c you don't usually see a 8-0 jury in favor of conviction overturned by a 8-0 jury in favor of acquittal. that's a real polarized discrepany. you'd think a 8-0 first decision would at least be only overturned by like 5-4 jury in the appeals in best case scenario.

to say Hellman is impartial is lunacy. You can read his opinion and see he was strongly inclinded to believe Knox at face value. I think at several points he even states that Knox claimed this or that so it must be so, his logic was that silly. His verdict got tossed, and there has to be a reason for that.

the simple explanation on the lamp is that Knox took it from her room for the clean up. Rudy never cleaned up anything, and it's just not believable Meridith would borrow a desk lamp the night of the murder, and it seems like Knox would have said that Meridith often borrowed her desk lamp if there was some kind of reason for Meridith to need an extra light. The desk lamp was Amanda's only light source and Meridith would probably have no idea if Knox was coming back that night as the two did not call each other that night as far as I understand it.

 

[Malkmus]

nobody denies the body was FOUND in the room (except Knox when she told her friends she found the body in the closet, even though she didn't find the body, and it wasn't in the closet at the time). but there was evidence that indicated the victim was murdered in the closet, and later moved to the room where a staging took place to play up the rape. so talking about the pictures is silly, in this context.

You're not getting it, so here's a picture. Please explain how Meredith was ever in the closet pictured behind her.

 

[Malkmus]

i'm sure you think her callous cold statement there proves her innocence too.

FM: You mentioned to your friends in the Questura that according to you, Meredith died slowly.

AK: They said...

FM: How did you come to say that?

AK: I heard that her throat was cut, and from what I saw in CSI [Crime Scene Investigation] of these things, these things are neither quick nor pleasant. So when they said "We hope she died quickly," like I don't know, in some other way, I said "But what are you saying, her throat was cut, good Lord, bleargh." I had remained at that point, that brutality, this death that was really blechh, that made a horrible impression. That was what really struck me, that fact of having your throat cut. It seemed so gross, and I imagined that it was a very slow and terrifying death. So when they said "We hope it was like this," I said "No, I think it was really gross, disgusting."

Right so she never said that Meredith took a long time to die. Imagining that she died a slow death two years later during the trial isn't the same as telling the British girl the day the murder happened that Meredith "bled to death".

 

[Kaosium]

the hellman acquittal was just tossed out by the supreme court. the defense has not won anything yet.

Had Amanda and Raffaele been acquitted in the first trial, they still would have had to face an appeal, that's the way the system works. A Trial of the First Instance, which can be appealed by either side, a trial of the second instance, which can be appealed by either side, then it can be sent back to appeal by quashing by the supreme court, then they could be convicted but freed by a special tribunal of judges, then the prosecutor can file new charges on them, then they can be acquitted, then they can appeal....

And on, and on, and on....it's a system in a kook loop.

to say the DNA experts were independent in the 2nd trial is just not true. they obviously were pushing the same type of argument as the defense witnesses in the 1st trial.

It's called 'science.'

my opinion is Hellman had reviewed the first trial and had agreed with the defense in that trial.

It's called 'logic.'

He went out of his way to appoint DNA experts that would push the same message as the ones in the first trial, and he called them independent and only allowed them to testify.

The prosecution praised the professors from Rome profusely...until it appeared they knew something about science.

I bet this is at the heart of the Supreme Court tossing the verdict b/c it just seems real shady.

The Italian Corte Suprema di Cassazione only rules on legal technicalities. It may rule that the appointment of the independent experts was unnecessary and may cause other courts to want the same option, undermining the holy sanctity of their prosecutors to determine the standards of evidence with little input from the judge. If they don't like the judge's decision on anything, they appeal...

I don't think a court is supposed to decide who is an independent witness. what is the criteria to determine this? it makes sense to allow the prosecuter to pick his own experts, and allow the defense to pick his own experts, and let the jury decide which experts made the best case. I never heard of a judge picking an expert in a trial before. it's not surprising the jury decided to acquit when the only testimony they heard was from DNA people who, at least on the surface, seemed to agree with the defense.

The problem was in this trial the prosecution was pretending things like 'footprints' which was a generous term for some of them-one looks more like a mermaid, (a rather fetching and shapely one at that!)-that had tested negative for blood that the prosecution had hid from the court were still blood with a technobabble explanation the average person could not comprehend.

but, if you dig in to what they said, they conceded the Y DNA pointed to Raf, or at least, Raf's dad or maybe an uncle, which wouldn't make any sense. they also only contested 4 of the loci in the auto DNA, and if the prosecuted just conceded that, it would still be strong evidence of Raff and highly unlikely to be anybody else.

That's only one small part of why the DNA 'evidence' was invalid. Regardless if there was a profile there of Raffaele or not, it had been provably subject to contamination or transfer that the prosecution tried to hide.

your point on the lamp is silly. you claim that rudy commited this crime on his own. Why would Rudy placed Amanda's lamp on the floor in the victim's bedroom? IF he wanted to frame her, why didn't he attempt to erease his own traces including flushing his feces in the toilet and his bloody handprint and footprints? Also, since his bloody footprints head straight to the front door, it doesn't seem like he placed the lamp in her room after the murder. So why would he need her lamp in the room prior to the murder if we concede that Meridith had plenty of lighting in her room already to facilite his rape of her?

the only other possibliy that I can see is Meridith borrowed Knox's lamp but I just can't buy that considering the two were not getting along. given that Meridith was just reading or doing homework in her room, she probably had plenty of light with her own lamp, so there's no reason she would borrow Amanda's.

it seems much more probalble Amanda borrowed her own lamp after the murder and it was on the floor b/c it was used to examine the floor for bloody prints and maybe something like an ear piercing that had been stripped off in the altercation with the victim.

This is what I think of the lamp:

As I recall Amanda's testimony on the all-important, absolutely case-crucial smoking-gun lamp, ultimate proof of the clean-up that never occurred, sinister motive for not breaking down the door and repository of all things diabolical in this case--and the Kennedy assassination as well--was something to the effect of:

'Huh? A lamp? I dunno, was it mine?'

Obviously she must be lying! Yet more proof of the lamp's significance! She even conspired against herself on the stand to protect the dread secret of the lamp! What more proof can we need of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt of murderous depravity than that artful dodging of these critical questions!

Them trying to pretend that irrelevant damned lamp was anything but an irrelevant damned lamp is the signature of desperate conspiracy theorists.

Obviously! She had to make sure her puppet Raffaele very carefully didn't break the door down and retrieve the irrelevant damned lamp which was proof positive of the clean-up that never occurred!

However it was very important that she have her slaveboy try so conspiracy theorists years from now can still be speculating as to the motives of her ordering Raffaele to fail to break down the door and not retrieve the irrelevant damned lamp which was absolute proof of the clean-up that never occurred!

I wrote that two years ago, do you want to split the million with me?

pointing out it's the room next door seems kind of pointless b/c you put constraints on who could have been in the house and you say it only could have been rudy and it makes no sense rudy would have borrowed the lamp, and there's no evidence he stuck around after the murder or was involved in any kind of cleanup.

My guess is Meredith borrowed the lamp, causing the perfect bare foot print in Amanda's room that doesn't match Amanda's foot profile because of the extended toe.

Actually that's silly, but wrapping up two irrelevant anomalies in one go ought to be worth some sort of prize!

 

[Malkmus]

You guys blame a conspiracy to frame Knox for this murder, so I can't see how you can have a problem with me suggesting that the DNA experts in the 2nd trial were not really independent.

Shoddy police work does not suggest a conspiracy. Saying the judge hired experts that would just corroborate the defense is, however.

Again, this isn't how a criminal trial should be conducted. Judges shouldn't be determining experts who are independent and that seems to be a subjective thing, not something you can establish without any doubt. in my mind, a proper trial allows both defense and prosecution to pick their own experts, these experts testify, and the jury decides who they agree with more. a judge gettingtha to pick the dna experts is one that could be bought by people, such as Raff's rich doctor daddy, who in my opinion, was able to get Hellman, a labor judge, assigned to this case, somehow. Somethig about the entire appeals trial was odd, b/c you don't usually see a 8-0 jury in favor of conviction overturned by a 8-0 jury in favor of acquittal. that's a real polarized discrepany. you'd think a 8-0 first decision would at least be only overturned by like 5-4 jury in the appeals in best case scenario.

More conspiracy theory about experts being bought off doesn't resonate with me. Sorry.
It's hard to assume that what you're guessing about the independent experts comes from any place other than the fact that their outcome wasn't what you desired.

to say Hellman is impartial is lunacy. You can read his opinion and see he was strongly inclinded to believe Knox at face value. I think at several points he even states that Knox claimed this or that so it must be so, his logic was that silly. His verdict got tossed, and there has to be a reason for that.

You may find it lunacy, but the prosecution is still going to have to try to convince another jury that that the luminol prints were blood even though they tested negative, that they should trust the DNA even though it was improperly handled, that they should trust witnesses who changed their own stories and contradicted themselves, and put blind faith in an interrogation that wasn't recorded.

the simple explanation on the lamp is that Knox took it from her room for the clean up. Rudy never cleaned up anything, and it's just not believable Meridith would borrow a desk lamp the night of the murder,

I didn't say she borrowed it the night of the murder. But even if she had, it would still just be a coincidence.

and it seems like Knox would have said that Meridith often borrowed her desk lamp if there was some kind of reason for Meridith to need an extra light.

She was reportedly at Raf's every night for the week before the murder. She probably couldn't care less that Meredith borrowed her lamp. It's not like she borrowed her toothbrush.

The desk lamp was Amanda's only light source and Meridith would probably have no idea if Knox was coming back that night as the two did not call each other that night as far as I understand it.

Call? No. They texted.

 

[DrTesla]

You're not getting it, so here's a picture. Please explain how Meredith was ever in the closet pictured behind her.

[qimg]http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/1411/kercherroomlabelsbyital.jpg[/qimg]

what don't you get about the body was moved? I don't mean her entire body was in the closet, just that her head was in it when she was killed. there was a ton of blood over there. read the Micheli report summary that I posted about how it appeard she was on her shoulder near that closet for a long time, then moved to the middle of the room at a later point.

again, why did Knox talk about the closet if the body wasn't found partially in the closet? it seems like an odd detail if you didn't find the body and the body was't located in the room where talking about the closet makes sense.

 

[DrTesla]

Shoddy police work does not suggest a conspiracy. Saying the judge hired experts that would just corroborate the defense is, however.



More conspiracy theory about experts being bought off doesn't resonate with me. Sorry.
It's hard to assume that what you're guessing about the independent experts comes from any place other than the fact that their outcome wasn't what you desired.



You may find it lunacy, but the prosecution is still going to have to try to convince another jury that that the luminol prints were blood even though they tested negative, that they should trust the DNA even though it was improperly handled, that they should trust witnesses who changed their own stories and contradicted themselves, and put blind faith in an interrogation that wasn't recorded.



I didn't say she borrowed it the night of the murder. But even if she had, it would still just be a coincidence.



She was reportedly at Raf's every night for the week before the murder. She probably couldn't care less that Meredith borrowed her lamp. It's not like she borrowed her toothbrush.



Call? No. They texted.

I guarantee you that if this judge had appointed independent DNA experts who said Knox was guilty, you would be saying the exact same thing as I am, b/c you guys trash anybody who suggests these two are guilty. I don't see why you don't just concede that in a criminal trial, the defense and prosecuter should get to pick their experts and let the jury decide who makes the best case. the only DNA experts the second jury heard were ones who agreed with the defense's position in the first trial which obviously is going to bias the jury to the defense. it wasn't a level playing field.

I'm done destroying your spin for one night.

 

[anglolawyer]

My guess is Meredith borrowed the lamp, causing the perfect bare foot print in Amanda's room that doesn't match Amanda's foot profile because of the extended toe.

Actually that's silly, but wrapping up two irrelevant anomalies in one go ought to be worth some sort of prize!

Scream! Not you Kaosium, of all people. It's like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Your minds have all been taken over by some alien life form. Please, please think for one second. If the lamp was in the room when the door was broken open why was that simple fact not proved?

Why was the lamp not even allocated its own evidence marker, let alone (as far as we know) dusted and tested for prints or DNA? The evidence marker point was spotted by Malkmus IIRC btw. Here's one of the pictures showing the number 4, which is in fact the marker for the door (as is clear from other photos which I would post if I knew how to post two pics in the same post).

I feel like Rolfe does about TOD and in fact could do with that head-desk emoticon. Failing that I'm using this one on everyone who refuses to get it

 

[Malkmus]

what don't you get about the body was moved? I don't mean her entire body was in the closet, just that her head was in it when she was killed. there was a ton of blood over there. read the Micheli report summary that I posted about how it appeard she was on her shoulder near that closet for a long time, then moved to the middle of the room at a later point.

The bottom of the closet was filled with shoes. The most her head could have gotten in there was in inch. Her body was never in the closet, neither was her head. And even if her head was laying partially in the closet with 99 percent of her body in front of it, why the heck would anyone describe that as her being in the closet???

I would give this one up.

 

[Malkmus]

I guarantee you that if this judge had appointed independent DNA experts who said Knox was guilty, you would be saying the exact same thing as I am, b/c you guys trash anybody who suggests these two are guilty.

It is indisputable that the forensics team botched the investigation. Had the forensics team not given the independent experts ample reason to criticize the results then it would be difficult to defend their position.

I don't see why you don't just concede that in a criminal trial, the defense and prosecuter should get to pick their experts and let the jury decide who makes the best case.

I think having experts for both sides is fine, as long as a third party can mediate when its unclear how one side got their results.

the only DNA experts the second jury heard were ones who agreed with the defense's position in the first trial which obviously is going to bias the jury to the defense. it wasn't a level playing field.

Stephanoni testified. And the independent experts didn't agree with the defense's position until after they spent months conducting their analysis. Up until which point everyone on your side of the argument was fine with them.

I'm done destroying your spin for one night.

Okay.

 

[Kaosium]

Scream! Not you Kaosium, of all people. It's like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Your minds have all been taken over by some alien life form. Please, please think for one second. If the lamp was in the room when the door was broken open why was that simple fact not proved?

Why was the lamp not even allocated its own evidence marker, let alone (as far as we know) dusted and tested for prints or DNA? The evidence marker point was spotted by Malkmus IIRC btw. Here's one of the pictures showing the number 4, which is in fact the marker for the door (as is clear from other photos which I would post if I knew how to post two pics in the same post).

I feel like Rolfe does about TOD and in fact could do with that head-desk emoticon. Failing that I'm using this one on everyone who refuses to get it

People have speculated that the police brought it in there so they could see better, is that what you're getting at?

 

[anglolawyer]

People have speculated that the police brought it in there so they could see better, is that what you're getting at?

Very funny. Yes, that's what I'm getting at. LOL. It is the only way to explain Mignini's handling of the point.

ETA please don;t tell me you haven't read this

 

[DrTesla]

The bottom of the closet was filled with shoes. The most her head could have gotten in there was in inch. Her body was never in the closet, neither was her head. And even if her head was laying partially in the closet with 99 percent of her body in front of it, why the heck would anyone describe that as her being in the closet???

I would give this one up.

you really got some problems man. Your heroine Knox said she found the body in the closet or near the closet. I'm the one who needs to give it up? she made the claim the body was in the closet. there was evidence the body was in or immediately adjacent to the closet, and later moved to the middle of the room for a staging to play up the rape. for her to say it was in or near the closet, to mention the closet at all, prior to the police saing anything about this, is incriminating.

You don't just support Knox's innocence, you are nuts about it. no rational objective person would understand why this batty bimbo was talking about finding a body in the closet if she didn't see the body when it was discovered and it wasn't located in the or near the closet at the time. there is no innocent explanation for her comment here. she's either guilty or just nuts in general prone to making stuff up for no reason.


what cracks me up about the lamp is you guys eagerly agree to any theory about how it got there that doesn't include it's owner, who has a key to the house, and clearly was in town that night, with no alibi, putting it there. this is despite of the fact she came back next day to take a shower, she claimed, and upon arriving she noticed front door open and some blood in the bathroom and she said this bothered her, yet she doesn't look in her room and notice her lamp is missing? she then said she left, went back to raff's, came back to the house, and this time they noticed the window is broken and looks like a break in, so the idea of missing items on on her brai, but she STILL doesn't notice her lamp, her only light source in her room, is missing? I
just find that REAL hard to believe.

you guys are having to spin REAL hard to explain Knox on almost every little thing related to this case. there's really not one thing that is easy to explain and nobody can refute it, other than we know she had sex and smoked pot the night of the murder.

 

[Kaosium]

Very funny. Yes, that's what I'm getting at. LOL. It is the only way to explain Mignini's handling of the point.

ETA please don;t tell me you haven't read this

That's a great article! Great point about it not being in evidence. I recall you got interested in it a while ago, I always wondered why, I think maybe now I see.

Evidence tampering, with the irrelevant goddamn lamp? There is irony there perhaps only an Englishman could properly appreciate.

 

[DrTesla]

it should be pointed out that one big mistake of the police, not to treat Knox like a suspect, immediately after Raff recanted his alibi for her as a pack of lies. they kept treating her like a witness, which is proof of the fact they still d idn't think she was the killer, just knew something about the murder and wasn't sharing, so it doesn't make much sense they started torturing her as she claimed. but it was the decision not to treat her as a suspect that made her confession she was at the cottage not admissible in court, which is a huge break for her. so you can only complain about police incompetence so much if you are Amanda Knox. LOL

 

[DrTesla]

Irrelevant evidence = any evidence that points to Knox's and Raff's guilt.

Ever noticed that? bra clasp DNA = irrelevant. double DNA knife found at Raffe's house = irrelevant Amanda's lamp in the victim's room on the floor = irrelevant Raffe's bloody footprint on the floor = irrelevant

and on it goes.

 

[Kaosium]

Irrelevant evidence = any evidence that points to Knox's and Raff's guilt.

Ever noticed that? bra clasp DNA = irrelevant. double DNA knife found at Raffe's house = irrelevant

No, not irrelevant, just not evidence of Amanda or Raffaele being involved in the murder. They are evidence of the kind of case the prosecution made....

Amanda's lamp in the victim's room on the floor = irrelevant

Household items amongst roommates in college are hardly that proprietary. Did the lamp even belong to Amanda or was it just in the room when she got there?

Raffe's bloody footprint on the floor = irrelevant

and on it goes.

Why does that footprint look more like Rudy's? Why don't you look at them and see which one you pick without peeking?

 

[anglolawyer]

That's a great article! Great point about it not being in evidence. I recall you got interested in it a while ago, I always wondered why, I think maybe now I see.

Evidence tampering, with the irrelevant goddamn lamp? There is irony there perhaps only an Englishman could properly appreciate.

There is a God.

If we could just move on past the virtual certainty that one of the posties brought it in (as proved by Mig's otherwise inexplicable failure to use it) we could actually discuss what's really interesting about it. It proves what a bent bastard Mignini is. He knew it wasn't there but still used it anyway.

 

[Malkmus]

you really got some problems man. Your heroine Knox said she found the body in the closet or near the closet.

You've conveniently changed it to "or near the closet". Have you considered the fact that because Meredith was in the middle of the room you could say she was in front of the desk, the bed, or the wall too, and those would all be right? The fact is she said she heard they found a body in the closet, and that was wrong and impossible. Period.

You don't just support Knox's innocence, you are nuts about it.

Hey, don't forget Raf! I'm nuts about both of their innocence.

no rational objective person would understand why this batty bimbo was talking about finding a body in the closet if she didn't see the body when it was discovered and it wasn't located in the or near the closet at the time. there is no innocent explanation for her comment here. she's either guilty or just nuts in general prone to making stuff up for no reason.

You do know that Luca testified to telling Amanda and Raf details of the body on the car ride to the questura, right?

what cracks me up about the lamp is you guys eagerly agree to any theory about how it got there that doesn't include it's owner, who has a key to the house, and clearly was in town that night, with no alibi, putting it there. this is despite of the fact she came back next day to take a shower, she claimed, and upon arriving she noticed front door open and some blood in the bathroom and she said this bothered her, yet she doesn't look in her room and notice her lamp is missing? she then said she left, went back to raff's, came back to the house, and this time they noticed the window is broken and looks like a break in, so the idea of missing items on on her brai, but she STILL doesn't notice her lamp, her only light source in her room, is missing? I
just find that REAL hard to believe.

So why hasn't she tried to explain its presence there?

you guys are having to spin REAL hard to explain Knox on almost every little thing related to this case. there's really not one thing that is easy to explain and nobody can refute it, other than we know she had sex and smoked pot the night of the murder.

For someone who thinks the knife was found with blood on it, that the experts were paid off, and that Meredith could fit in the closet, I wouldn't accuse anyone of spin.

 

[Briars]

you really got some problems man. Your heroine Knox said she found the body in the closet or near the closet. I'm the one who needs to give it up? she made the claim the body was in the closet. there was evidence the body was in or immediately adjacent to the closet, and later moved to the middle of the room for a staging to play up the rape. for her to say it was in or near the closet, to mention the closet at all, prior to the police saing anything about this, is incriminating.

You don't just support Knox's innocence, you are nuts about it. no rational objective person would understand why this batty bimbo was talking about finding a body in the closet if she didn't see the body when it was discovered and it wasn't located in the or near the closet at the time. there is no innocent explanation for her comment here. she's either guilty or just nuts in general prone to making stuff up for no reason.

i
what cracks me up about the lamp is you guys eagerly agree to any theory about how it got there that doesn't include it's owner, who has a key to the house, and clearly was in town that night, with no alibi, putting it there. this is despite of the fact she came back next day to take a shower, she claimed, and upon arriving she noticed front door open and some blood in the bathroom and she said this bothered her, yet she doesn't look in her room and notice her lamp is missing? she then said she left, went back to raff's, came back to the house, and this time they noticed the window is broken and looks like a break in, so the idea of missing items on on her brai, but she STILL doesn't notice her lamp, her only light source in her room, is missing? I
just find that REAL hard to believe.

you guys are having to spin REAL hard to explain Knox on almost every little thing related to this case. there's really not one thing that is easy to explain and nobody can refute it, other than we know she had sex and smoked pot the night of the murder.

She called her mother at 3am Seattle time when nothing had been discovered yet then tried to deny or not remember that call.