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

[DrTesla]

I was just being a pedantic twit. DNA evidence is technically circumstantial too, it has nothing to do with the quality of it. Bad eyewitness testimony is worse in many cases.



Actually her story was consistent before and after the night the Bad Little Piggies of Perugia freaked her out. Unless someone goes nitpicking, who can recall every little thing, especially little details?



That would be considered a higher grade of circumstantial evidence.



Here's one for you Dr:

If the bra clasp was such great evidence, how come they videoed it on the floor during the initial forensic investigation and just left it there?

Or did they?

I think what they said is that they retrieved the rest of the bra at that time, and you would think in terms of surface area that there would be a greater chance that DNA was deposited on the bra than the bra clasp.

but what's your point, the room was sealed off, and DNA does not spontaneously originate over time. if it was on the bra clasp later then it was on the bra clasp whe nthey collected the other items.

 

[DrTesla]

You mean little details like where you were and what you were doing the night your roommate was killed?

I wonder what's the point of buying her book b/c she doesn't seem to remember much of anything useful. she should have called it Waiting to Remember Something Useful

 

[Kaosium]

Amanda was drugged up but a perfect little angel, confused enough to accuse an innocent man yet perfectly trustworthy. No matter what there's always an excuse.

She is a perfectly nice human being who was abused and defamed, that doesn't make her an angel, but it does mean that people who know better might be compelled to set the record straight when people lie about her or repeat those lies.

 

[RandyN]

is it considered not civil on here if you say something mean about Knox herself, like calling her a batty bimbo?

sometimes it seems like the forum is a bit overmoderated so maybe they consider this as not being civil. given Friends emotional attachment to Knox, insulting her is like insulting them as they see it.

You are free to insult any non member you like. (I happen to think Barbie Neadau is a stupid idiot) You are not free to address the arguer...only the argument. It all quite clearly explained in the rules.

The forum has rather strict rules. Although some members play a game of pushing the margins of the rules... The rules are necessary in a forum that deals with such a wide variety of topics...they get really hot over in the Bigfoot Thread...you should check it out.

 

[Kaosium]

I think what they said is that they retrieved the rest of the bra at that time,

Nope, there's a video of them recording the bra clasp in their initial forensic investigation, November 2, 2007 I think. How come they didn't collect it, but just left it there?

and you would think in terms of surface area that there would be a greater chance that DNA was deposited on the bra than the bra clasp.

Isn't it odd that there was nothing else on the bra, or even the edges of that bra clasp of Raffaele's? Or for that matter on or near the body of Meredith Kercher?

but what's your point, the room was sealed off, and DNA does not spontaneously originate over time. if it was on the bra clasp later then it was on the bra clasp whe nthey collected the other items.

That's actually rather doubtful. Why do you suppose they have such stringent contamination standards? Those sciency-types are anal about that sort of thing, so are the police in most places. Ever wonder why that is and what happens when they just blow it all off?

 

[Dan O.]

but what's your point, the room was sealed off, and dna does not spontaneously originate over time. If it was on the bra clasp later then it was on the bra clasp whe nthey collected the other items.

wrong

 

[DrTesla]

You are free to insult any non member you like. (I happen to think Barbie Neadau is s stupid idiot) You are not free to address the arguer...only the argument. It all quite clearly explained in the rules.

The forum has rather strict rules. Although some members play a game of pushing the margins of the rules... The rules are necessary in a forum that deals with such a wide variety of topics...they get really hot over in the Bigfoot Thread...you should check it out.

well the worse "insult" that I can remember saying is calling one of the people in here who claims he is a lawyer an "ambulance chaser" which is something I'm sure all lawyers get when other people are teasing them. if they are cracking down on that kind of thing as "a lack of civility", it's a bit over in the top, I think.

i have no problem with the rules in general, but there needs to be some discretion in the application of the rules or you end up with this rigid enforcement that doles out a punishment that doesn't match the crime much like you argue 25-30 years in prison for Knox simply because she's a progressive liberal girl who likes have lots of sex and smoking some weed is an excessive punishment for her sins.

 

[DrTesla]

wrong

you guys will argue anything. it kind of impresses me and weirds me out at the same time. LOL

 

[Dan O.]

Nope, there's a video of them recording the bra clasp in their initial forensic investigation, November 2, 2007 I think. How come they didn't collect it, but just left it there?

For those with a True Facts^TM kit, the still photo of the discovery of the bra clasp is dec_0278.jpg (Date Time: Nov 3, 2007 2:30:54 AM). The video will be an hour off because somebody forgot to check the time before they started filming.

 

[DrTesla]

Nope, there's a video of them recording the bra clasp in their initial forensic investigation, November 2, 2007 I think. How come they didn't collect it, but just left it there?



Isn't it odd that there was nothing else on the bra, or even the edges of that bra clasp of Raffaele's? Or for that matter on or near the body of Meredith Kercher?



That's actually rather doubtful. Why do you suppose they have such stringent contamination standards? Those sciency-types are anal about that sort of thing, so are the police in most places. Ever wonder why that is and what happens when they just blow it all off?

well the DNA is found where it is found. you can't control where it is found and i would think the clasp would have more opportunies for touch transfer than most of the bra but obviously it's been years since I've seen a bra (who am I kidding, I've never seen one....LOL...that's why i'm jealous of raff cuz at least he hooked up before going to jail until he's 80....it was worth it bro..LOL)

dr stef is a sciency-type yet you contend that she doesn't care at all about contamination standards. i just can't understand how raffe's dna could have accidentally landed right on the most incriminating place possible, the bra clasp, given the only other raffe dna in the house was found on a cig in the kitchen. that's some real back luck for our hero Raff, cuz it was the law of averages balancing out his real good luck in hooking up with the beautiful Butcher of Perugia. LOL

 

[Dan O.]

you guys will argue anything. it kind of impresses me and weirds me out at the same time. LOL

What's truly bizarre is that I've mentioned this probably 3 times since you joined here. Have you seen the cottage door photo taken by Barbie Nadeau on the morning of November 14th, 2007?

 

[DrTesla]

You are free to insult any non member you like. (I happen to think Barbie Neadau is s stupid idiot) You are not free to address the arguer...only the argument. It all quite clearly explained in the rules.

The forum has rather strict rules. Although some members play a game of pushing the margins of the rules... The rules are necessary in a forum that deals with such a wide variety of topics...they get really hot over in the Bigfoot Thread...you should check it out.

she's kind of cute, i like the way she talks and she seems to have a soft personality and be laid back. she's a liberal babe so she's doing pretty good for herself despite some confusion about things.

 

[DrTesla]

What's truly bizarre is that I've mentioned this probably 3 times since you joined here. Have you seen the cottage door photo taken by Barbie Nadeau on the morning of November 14th, 2007?

Barbie seems much more neutral about this case than me, i saw one article she wrote where she summaraized the evidence and said who it benefited and she said the bra clasp DNA benefited nobody. LOL, i think that clearly benfits the prosecution and that would be enough for conviction in the States.

 

[Dan O.]

despite some confusion about things.

What is it that you are still confused about?

 

[Dan O.]

Barbie seems much more neutral about this case than me, i saw one article she wrote where she summaraized the evidence and said who it benefited and she said the bra clasp DNA benefited nobody. LOL, i think that clearly benfits the prosecution and that would be enough for conviction in the States.

You are wrong again and you are also avoiding the topic about the cottage door.

 

[RandyN]

I think what they said is that they retrieved the rest of the bra at that time, and you would think in terms of surface area that there would be a greater chance that DNA was deposited on the bra than the bra clasp.

but what's your point, the room was sealed off, and DNA does not spontaneously originate over time. if it was on the bra clasp later then it was on the bra clasp whe nthey collected the other items.

Ahhh yea....no it wasn't sealed off. In fact someone took the closet doors off their hinges and removed Merediths mattress between the two CSI. In fact Barbie Neadau...crime reporter, unwittingly snapped a picture that proves no crime scene seal...well the door has the seal tape on it cept that the door is wide open??? How the heck is that possible?

On or near Dec 17th RS family proved that his shoes did not match those from the crime scene. As Randy pointed out...RS shoes had 7 rings and Guedes shoes had 11 rings. I guess Perugia police cant count?

Anyway, the only thing that connected RS to the crime is now gone. And so suddenly we have a re-intervention of the CSI team on Dec 18th... dressed in full bunny suits and with cameras rolling...(thank goodness for the cameras that documented just how bad these guys actually were). What the cameras revealed is that besides this irrelevant bra clasp the police forgot to take a bloody jacket, bloody socks and shoes...why they even forgot to take MK purse.

The room (not just the room but the whole cottage) had clearly been tossed by someone...no one seems to take responsibility for this mess though.

Its funny in retrospect to review the discovery of the bra clasp...why its almost as if they knew they had just discovered key evidence...perhaps they could see RS DNA there on that tiny metal clasp.

I dont suppose you find it at all odd that the only two LCN samples...one for each wrongly arrested and jailed persons was mishandled and rendered or made useless do to improper storage? Well actually there was ever only one sample...the bra clasp. The knife DNA was tested for blood and found to be negative...in fact the blade samples were all tested and found to be too low to test. Too low means just that...no protocol allows for the continued testing of a sample too low to measure...less than 10 picograms and very possibly zero picograms. And zero means nothing. And while small samples can possibly be tested the testing requires special equipment and special handling and special training...none of which was available to lab tech Stefanoni in 2007. In fact her and Biondos lab was not certified to any standard at that time...these are just a few reasons the lab has refused to comply with proper discovery so far. Missing electronic data files will play a key role in the upcoming new trial...if one ever happens.

 

[Kaosium]

well the DNA is found where it is found.

Assuming adherence to proper collection standards, a seamless chain of custody and competent lab practices in a proper environment.

None of those were the case with the bra-clasp, they were laughably bad.

you can't control where it is found and i would think the clasp would have more opportunies for touch transfer than most of the bra but obviously it's been years since I've seen a bra (who am I kidding, I've never seen one....LOL...that's why i'm jealous of raff cuz at least he hooked up before going to jail until he's 80....it was worth it bro..LOL)

Actually on that sort of bra you never touch the clasp, you push the fabric next to it together to release the hooks.

dr stef is a sciency-type yet you contend that she doesn't care at all about contamination standards.

She said she did, but she was lying in court when she said that, it was proven with video evidence and everything to the mirth of the assembled multitudes.

i just can't understand how raffe's dna could have accidentally landed right on the most incriminating place possible, the bra clasp, given the only other raffe dna in the house was found on a cig in the kitchen.

We do know when they initially collected and examined the items in the murder room that absolutely nothing of Raffaele's was found. They went down to the picogram as best they could looking for evidence of murder, it came up all Rudy.

However in reality there was going to be more there, just not on or near the body.

Think of it this way, if there was DNA on the cigarette butt, where was he sitting (or standing) when he smoked it?

that's some real back luck for our hero Raff, cuz it was the law of averages balancing out his real good luck in hooking up with the beautiful Butcher of Perugia. LOL

Amanda never killed anyone, don't be silly.

 

[anglolawyer]

If I recall correctly, Kokomani was called in because there was some evidence he was in the area, I think it was his car was sighted (or one like it?) there at some point after the murder. He also said something about Rudy wanting to rent his car after the murder, but given his bizarre testimony and appearance and later revelations about his activities he disappeared from the case discussion.

I always wondered that if there was any truth to Rudy's story, if Kokomani might either know it or have been involved, even if it was just to provide Rudy with a potential getaway if he'd not been interrupted and could have continued with the burglary.

Does anyone know what happened to him?

He became an Italian Supreme Court judge.

 

[Kaosium]

You mean little details like where you were and what you were doing the night your roommate was killed?

Yeah, when the police convinced her she had to have been there and had 'hard evidence' this was so and she had 'blocked' the memory due to trauma.

Even then she notes she's confused about it, and it lasted all of a day.

Why do you suppose the police thought those vague confused statements were real?

 

[Mary_H]

You mean little details like where you were and what you were doing the night your roommate was killed?

You bring up a good point, tsig. I would think the police and prosecutors would have been a lot more interested in getting the details out of Amanda than they seem to have been. The confessions they got from her were so sketchy! It seems to me that if you have a murder suspect, or even an accomplice, in your interrogation room, you would want to know every single detail about what happened that night.

As far as we know, since there is no interrogation tape, the interviewers let up on Amanda just as soon as she implicated Patrick. Don't you think that's strange? I mean, after all the work it took to get that out of her, don't you think they would want to know the entire story, step by step? How and when did Amanda and Patrick make their plan? What did Patrick say to Meredith when they got there? Did Meredith willingly go into the bedroom with Patrick, or did she ask Amanda what was going on?

Then for Amanda to say she woke up in Raffaele's bed the next morning? Come on! Is that good enough for the Perugian police and prosecutor? How about WHEN did you leave the cottage? HOW did you get to Raffaele's? Did Patrick walk you there? What did you and Patrick talk about after the murder? What did Patrick do with his bloody clothes? Do you think you might have gone back to the club first? Did Patrick seem nervous?

The questions to get to the bottom of everything that happened could have gone on and on for hours more. They certainly would have been important to any really thorough investigation. Then, on top of all that, when Amanda was on the stand at trial, they never even asked her to describe the murder, or even if she murdered Meredith!

Why, do you think, were they so uncurious?