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

[RandyN]

Actually, you look at the evidence first, and look to who might fit into what that evidence shows you.
You definitely do not have to bent that evidence to fit your version, nor do you have to discredit almost everyone who had anything to do with this case in order for you version of innocence to unfold.


I heard somewhere in this trial that unless contamination can be proven, then it does not exist. If you think about it, contamination is always a possibility, there for DNA should always be thrown out of court, but it isn't.
Is not all evidence presented by the prosecution, it is the defense's job to disprove that evidence. That it what a trial is......





Because you have to look at all the evidence as a whole, not individually, separately, that shoe print outside Meredith's door doesn't mean much, neither does that broken window, the way Amanda acted throughout t the investigation or even the cartwheel, and so forth, but when you take them all together, they do start to have meaning. FOAKERs look at these things, one by one, Guitars tend to look more at the whole picture.
I'll ask once again, if people here do not like being call a Foaker or a Guilter, then please tell me what you would accept, I have asked before, myself, I really don't care, I'm half of each I suppose.

Sure, but where does evidence fit in for "case closed" by Nov 6th? No DNA returned yet, no fingerprint data...nothing actually except for the highly questionable non-statements brain washed out of a scared 20 year old girl. They even hit her. Do you doubt that?

Funny but you describe exactly how the police and prosecutor developed this case over a years time. The PIP do not need to bend any facts. The prosecutor simply failed to prove its case. Ever changing motives, firing pathologists because he wont bend to your TOD. Withholding discovery items about the scientific investigation. What honest scientist needs to do that? Burning up computer hard drives...4 including Filos...one drive taken apart...thats nuts.

The statement you make about contamination is simply wrong. Sure contamination is always possible. That's why certified labs who are competently staffed always run positive and negative control samples. The idea is to prove each test. These control sample runs could easily be proven by simply turning over the electronic data files...something that so far the prosecution and police have failed to do. Why?

No the prosecution presents its case and the defense only need to convince the jurors that the prosecution failed to provide facts about the crime. That is abundantly clear in this case. Otherwise the prosecution wouldn't be depending on witnesses like Toto or Nara or Quintinvale...nor would they be depending on the weakest LCN one single sample for each defendant DNA data. That in itself is remarkable...leaving out all the lies, obfuscations and tricks attempted in court. For example Comodi trying to sneak in false control data sheets...cept the numbers and dates didnt match...here in the USA the case would be dismissed and Comodi tossed into jail...in Italy they give her a medal.

Ok..the shoe print Guede, broken window...also Guede and fits his MO. That leaves AK behavior and a cartwheel. I cant understand why you link Guede evidence to Knox? And the cartwheel was a split but sure it was stupid...but do you really think you should add that to the evidence of guilt?

Foakers. I am not Foaker.I dont even like Knox. I hear she is smelly and loud. I looked at this case from both sides. The prosecution and certain police are the liars...it doesn't take a genius to see that over time. Some corruption and some incompetence and a jury and judge willing to overlook nonsense speculation and allow that as evidence.

That is the reason that Italy has the most violations against its courts for failing to provide a fair trial. At least so says the European Court Of Human Rights.

 

[DrTesla]

Originally Posted by halides1
If the only reason that TMB gave negative results when luminol gave positives were a difference in sensitivity, then there would be exactly zero reasons to use it as a follow-up test; yet it is often used as just that. I may have more to say later.


Your comment is specious. just b/c TMB is less sensitive to blood than Luminol doesn't mean they shouldn't use it as a follow up test.

if you get a positive result with TMB it's just more evidence it's blood. you can't predict that the trace is NOT going to have whatever characteristics necessary that set off TMB's sensitivity prior to using it. a negative result with TMB doesn't mean it's not blood but positive test means it is or probably is blood, as I understand it.

 

[Grinder]

was this the reporter:

http://youtu.be/7uG9PGqaWeo

No he was younger.

 

[anglolawyer]

Gotta disagree with you on this one, just because someone may be intelligent and knowledgeable in regard to one subject doesn't make them so on all subjects (or could have been said inversely).

I've noticed a lot of folks that haven prove to be intelligent in one or various subjects can become arrogant and in becoming arrogant think they are just as learned in all subjects. As a result, they become blind and belligerent and are unable to ever see a scenario in which they could be mistaken or wrong. Perhaps this is what you mean and as a result it disqualifies them from being intelligent on any subject?

No, I meant what I said. There are no informed and intelligent pro-guilt people. It's due to lack of one or other quality (or both) that they got this one wrong. It's like an exam. They didn't bone up the night before or pay attention in class so they failed.

 

[DrTesla]

No, I meant what I said. There are no informed and intelligent pro-guilt people. It's due to lack of one or other quality (or both) that they got this one wrong. It's like an exam. They didn't bone up the night before or pay attention in class so they failed.

you spend more time on here talking about the intelligence of pro guilt people than actually making a case for Knox's innocence. you can't wish away the DNA on the knife and the DNA on the bra clasp and how could it have found itself to the two most incriminating spots possible if they were innocent? You guys seem to want to accuse Dr Stef of planting the DNA or simply just lying about its presence, without making that specific claim. there's been no credible scenario put forth by the defense as to how contamination could have occurred, and in this case it would have to had occur for BOTH the knife DNA and the bra clasp DNA. just seems impossible that you would have innocent contamination for two different pieces of evidence found in two different houses. the defense's best shot at explaining how contamination could have taken place is that it is possible. well it is also possible that Knox and Raffe killed the victim, but you want the prosecution to show a bit more evidence of it than just saying it possible, right? Same should apply to how contamination took place if that is what you are claiming.

Your argument for yourself is similar to the infamous Matt Jones: I am a lawyer, therefore I'm right.

In his case, he clearly did not know anything about the evidence against Knox but he was proclaiming her innocent b/c he read her book, and b/c he's a trial lawyer and he knows trial juries. he harped and mocked Knox for her really weird behavior in and outside of the courtroom but no way jose does that point to her guilt in the murder. I think it is much more logical to believe that if the accused is acting weird in and outside the court room it is because they are guilty but there seem to be a lot of contrarians out there that just know this doesn't point to her guilt.

 

[Dan O.]

"I didn’t notice anyone coming or going during the eight or 10 minutes it took me to load the broken-down car onto my tow truck.”

Does anyone know what was wrong with the car? Have you ever heard a car with a frozen A/C pump? That can make a god awful screetch that might actually be heard by a sleepy old lady behind double pane windows nearby.

 

[RandyN]

We're all just speculating here, so I'll throw out a thought.

It seems Rudy didn't go in with the intent of rape & murder but surprised Meredith when he came out of the bathroom (most likely when she arrived after he broke in).

That's when she screamed. Perhaps he tried to leave out the front door but it was locked and had to come back to quiet her or the scream caused him to panic and grab her and attempt to subdue/quiet her.

She fights back..

...things escalate...so he pulls out his knife (perhaps he had it out already when he exited the bathroom).

In the whirlwind of trying to control & quiet her from behind with a knife to her neck and/or his hand over her mouth he cuts her, maybe not even fatally at this point (these might be the little cuts).

Now that its only gotten worse, the struggle continues to ensue & realizing he cant just run away because she knows him he makes the split second, fateful decision that he must kill her to keep her quiet.

flame away

No flames...I think this is exactly what happened. The decision to rape her dying body is a step past an "accidental" murder though.

 

[DrTesla]

I think if we polled the Silent Majority on here, the lurkers who rarely comment, you would find that about 9 out of 10 of them strongly now understand that Knox and Raffe are guilty as charged. there's been a lot of movement toward the prosecution's side in recent days, I can feel it.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

 

[Grinder]

One aspect of the problem with the "Luminol" prints is this: A murderer can dispose of the victim's body and mop up the pools of blood, but without some heavy-duty cleaning chemicals, some evidence will remain. Tiny particles of blood will cling to most surfaces for years and years, without anyone ever knowing they're there.
Even though many other substances will light up under Luminol, another problem is that the prints aren't dated. From the highlighted section above those prints could have been left ten years before the murder. Since the TMB test was negative, that means the concentration wasn't high enough. If the concentration wasn't high enough, the prints could have been the result of a very small amount of blood in the shower from a variety of sources, nose bleed, the cut I got from the lilac bush etc. Over many years it is certainly possible that a small amount of blood mixed with water occurred.

Rose identified one print that didn't conform with Amanda's foot because of the second toe.

Luminol chemiluminescence can also be triggered by a number of substances such as copper or copper-containing chemical compounds, and certain bleaches; and, as a result, if a crime scene is thoroughly cleaned with a bleach solution, residual cleaner will cause the entire crime scene to produce the typical blue glow, effectively camouflaging any organic evidence, such as blood.
Horseradish sauce, via the enzyme horseradish peroxidase, catalyses the oxidation of luminol, emitting light at 428 nm (blue in the visible spectrum), which may result in a false positive.
Luminol will also detect the small amounts of blood present in urine, and it can be distorted if animal blood is present in the room that is being tested.
Luminol reacts with fecal matter, causing the same glow as if it were blood.

 

[RandyN]

yeah, all the time, until I throw up a little bit in my mouth. it starts to seem like a Miss America Contestant platitude after awhile.

you guys don't seem to afford the cops, or Mignini or Dr Stef the presumption of innocence, or think you have the burden of proof in your many accusations of these people.

The cops lied in court, Mignini lied in court and on the street, Stefanoni is NOT A DOCTOR. But she is a certain liar...starting at the prelim all the way thru to the appeal trial. Liar or the dumbest person pf earth.

The proof is in the irregularities of the prosecutions case. Why so dependent on crazy witnesses, withholding discovery items, sub-cases filed against anyone Mignini decides is harmful to his theory, lies about recordings, lies about acting as a notary...on and on and on...................

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

We're all just speculating here, so I'll throw out a thought.

It seems Rudy didn't go in with the intent of rape & murder but surprised Meredith when he came out of the bathroom (most likely when she arrived after he broke in).

That's when she screamed. Perhaps he tried to leave out the front door but it was locked and had to come back to quiet her or the scream caused him to panic and grab her and attempt to subdue/quiet her.

She fights back..

...things escalate...so he pulls out his knife (perhaps he had it out already when he exited the bathroom).

In the whirlwind of trying to control & quiet her from behind with a knife to her neck and/or his hand over her mouth he cuts her, maybe not even fatally at this point (these might be the little cuts).

Now that its only gotten worse, the struggle continues to ensue & realizing he cant just run away because she knows him he makes the split second, fateful decision that he must kill her to keep her quiet.

flame away

I doubt there was any kind of communication between them prior to the attack. It's possible he surprised her in another part of the house and chased her back to her room. But there's no evidence of that, no sign of a struggle anywhere except her room.

Most likely he entered her room and grabbed her from behind, using the element of surprise. He almost certainly had the knife ready in his right hand. He stabbed her under the chin in the corner by her bed and nightstand. We can see that the attack began there, because blood droplets were found on the floor and the slats of the bed, along with finger streaks on the wall, but there isn't much blood.

It is possible that the initial stab wound was meant to force her to submit to his control, but if so, she did not submit. The struggle moved diagonally across the room as she tried to break free of his grasp. A small area rug, which was probably next to her bed like similar rugs in the other three bedrooms, appears to have been carried under foot so it ended up on the opposite side of the room.

Further signs of a struggle, including shoe marks and bloodstains, are evident in the area adjacent to her desk and window. The struggle ended when he forced her to her knees in front of her wardrobe and cut her throat. She would have been incapacitated instantly, choking on blood, unable to rise to her feet.

This phase of the attack probably took place over a span of 30 seconds, certainly less than a minute. Then he dragged her into the middle of the room, ripped her clothing off, and sexually assaulted her.

It's entirely possible he did not set out with any intent beyond simple burglary. He was reckless in leaving behind physical evidence, which suggests he was acting on impulse rather than carrying out a plan. But whatever his intent may have been, he did end up committing rape and murder.

 

[DrTesla]

The cops lied in court, Mignini lied in court and on the street, Stefanoni is NOT A DOCTOR. But she is a certain liar...starting at the prelim all the way thru to the appeal trial. Liar or the dumbest person pf earth.

The proof is in the irregularities of the prosecutions case. Why so dependent on crazy witnesses, withholding discovery items, sub-cases filed against anyone Mignini decides is harmful to his theory, lies about recordings, lies about acting as a notary...on and on and on...................

I saw some pictures of this Dr. Stef babe. Outside of being a hottie, she LOOKS like an intelligent woman, and a good woman.

it would really rock my world if I was wrong about that b/c I'm pretty good at guessing a person's IQ and personality and decency based on their looks, especially women.

Now, Mignini, that's another story. LOL I must confess that I enjoy the fact he's a bit Dirty Harry though. I just loved the fact he kept messing with Amanda's fragile mind in the courtroom, constantly referring to Rudy as "poor poor Rudy". I can't remember any other murder case where the prosecuter was able to make the defendant cry, and Mignini was able to do this multiple times throughout the trial. Given the fact that Knox is an Ice Queen who is not prone to crying like some women who are more girlie girl. one has to be in awe of Mignini.

could a defendant crying in court be seen as a evidence against her...a indirect admission she knows she can't spin her way out of it and the evidence against her incriminating?

 

[Dan O.]

In order for some of the PGP's Ive discussed the case with to believe what they believe, they would have to be wrong on many issues and willfully or unwillfully blind to seeing the case in any other way but guilt.

I can't help but wonder at times if I am guilty of the very same thing. I have no dog in this fight except the truth. I don't care if she is guilty or innocent, I just want the final outcome to match the truth.

At the end of the day, I'll trust my own judgement but this case has made me back pedal and be more thorough before I make any final determinations, which I suppose is a good thing

When the discussion is civilized and the forum isn't being spammed with unsupported allegations, it's possible for the PIP and PGP to confront their differences and drill down to find the basis for the belief on each side. You have to put aside the egos holding up your prefered facts and look for the solid foundations. If there is still a disagreement, you have to look deeper at what's holding up the foundations. I look for things like contemporous documentation, chain of custody and even the scientific basis for forensic science. When this is carried out in a civil manor, everybody wins because for every point you lose you gain new knowledge.

 

[RandyN]

you spend more time on here talking about the intelligence of pro guilt people than actually making a case for Knox's innocence. you can't wish away the DNA on the knife and the DNA on the bra clasp and how could it have found itself to the two most incriminating spots possible if they were innocent? You guys seem to want to accuse Dr Stef of planting the DNA or simply just lying about its presence, without making that specific claim. there's been no credible scenario put forth by the defense as to how contamination could have occurred, and in this case it would have to had occur for BOTH the knife DNA and the bra clasp DNA. just seems impossible that you would have innocent contamination for two different pieces of evidence found in two different houses. the defense's best shot at explaining how contamination could have taken place is that it is possible. well it is also possible that Knox and Raffe killed the victim, but you want the prosecution to show a bit more evidence of it than just saying it possible, right? Same should apply to how contamination took place if that is what you are claiming.

Your argument for yourself is similar to the infamous Matt Jones: I am a lawyer, therefore I'm right.

In his case, he clearly did not know anything about the evidence against Knox but he was proclaiming her innocent b/c he read her book, and b/c he's a trial lawyer and he knows trial juries. he harped and mocked Knox for her really weird behavior in and outside of the courtroom but no way jose does that point to her guilt in the murder. I think it is much more logical to believe that if the accused is acting weird in and outside the court room it is because they are guilty but there seem to be a lot of contrarians out there that just know this doesn't point to her guilt.

Funny you should mention "items of evidence" that Stefanoni either thru corruption or sheer stupidity destroyed so that any further testing is impossible. All scientific tests (not just DNA) require repeatability. Stefanoni requires us to ignore that requirement along with her un-certified methodology and wants us to simply believe her. In complete contrast to the lies and tricks and withholding of data any other scientist would gladly turn over...unless they wanted to keep something hidden.

So its not about proving contamination or not. Its about data that is incorrect for a number of reasons...non-repeatability, keeping electronic data files hidden, attempting to sneak false control data sheets into the court record. These irregularities should cause everyone to question why these things have happened to have occurred. Just too many co-incidences to be straightforward, honest mistakes.

 

[Dan O.]

From my favorite website, murder of Meredith kercher.com:

A popular defence against the claim that the footprints were made in blood is that Luminol also fluoresces with sprayed on some substances other than blood. The reason the Luminol is useful to crime scene reconstruction rests on the fact that the substances that cause false positives are typically not found at crime scenes and in the cases of substances such as some brands of enamel paint the false positive is easy to detect because the reaction is not limited to a blood deposit pattern but covers the entire affected surface. In our case the Luminol reaction were in the shape of feet with three of the traces having succinct details to identify them as footprints compatible with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The footprints were also limited to the part of the corridor between Meredith and Amanda's room and were not found anywhere else in the cottage. This would allow us to eliminate reactions to paint or to terracotta or ceramic elements in the tile

Are you basing your belief on what somebody else wrote on the Internet? Or, have you looked at those luminol print photographs for yourself? let's not just repeat the same claims over and over. Let's dig down and uncover the truth.

When you look at the list of substances that cause luminol to react have you noticed that rust usually has a prominent position in those lists?

 

[RandyN]

I saw some pictures of this Dr. Stef babe. Outside of being a hottie, she LOOKS like an intelligent woman, and a good woman.

it would really rock my world if I was wrong about that b/c I'm pretty good at guessing a person's IQ and personality and decency based on their looks, especially women. Now, Mignini, that's another story. LOL I must confess that I enjoy the fact he's a bit Dirty Harry though. I just loved the fact he kept messing with Amanda's fragile mind in the courtroom, constantly referring to Rudy as "poor poor Rudy". I can't remember any other murder case where the prosecuter was able to make the defendant cry, and Mignini was able to do this multiple times throughout the trial. Given the fact that Knox is an Ice Queen who is not prone to crying like some women who are more girlie girl. one has to be in awe of Mignini.

could a defendant crying in court be seen as a evidence against her...a indirect admission she knows she can't spin her way out of it and the evidence against her incriminating?

Giobbi, is that you posting here on JREF?

 

[Supernaut]

Well, keep reading, I've read them all, even the ones he's posted over at PMF.

That's impressive(?).

ETA >> that's the entire comments section of an Amazon customer review. Hubba, hubba.

 

[Supernaut]

Giobbi, is that you posting here on JREF?

The "ignore" function is your friend, Randy.

 

[Antony]

yeah, all the time, until I throw up a little bit in my mouth. it starts to seem like a Miss America Contestant platitude after awhile.

Let's remind ourself that this is Tesla's reaction to "presumption of innocence" and "burden of proof".

you guys don't seem to afford the cops, or Mignini or Dr Stef the presumption of innocence, or think you have the burden of proof in your many accusations of these people.

Well it was you who pointed out that "the police are not on trial". They are the ones making accusations against the defendants, and they are expected to prove them, without any presumption in their favour.

When and if individuals in this dog's breakfast of a prosecution are put on trial for perjury, false arrest, and misuse of the powers of office, they will also be entitled to a presumption of innocence. It won't be enough to counter the substantial evidence of misconduct.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Pasquali on the broken window

Ann Wise of ABC news reported on his testimony about the rock and the broken window: "By analyzing the trajectory of the rock and the projection of the glass shards, Pasquali said he could 'exclude that the glass could have been broken from the inside.'"