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

[billyryan]

Would planting evidence only against Raffaele be sufficient to cover for the false arrest of the two? Or, is Amanda's arrest already sufficiently covered by the extraction of the false confession?

How could Monica physically accomplish planting this evidence on her own? She would need access to something known to have Raffaele's DNA and either take that to the crime scene or break into the crime scene earlier to bring the clasp to the source of the DNA. In the first case she has to insure that she finds the clasp before anyone else knows it's there or rely on the opportunity to handle the clasp comming up before the clasp is sealed inside the evidence bag. In the second case, she would need the key to enter the cottage and she needs to have the tampering of the seal on the front door covered up. We know the tampering of the seal was covered up but was this her work. Who controls the keys?

The knife was in the game by then,and it was being relied on to convict Amanda along with all of the character asassination that was going on,the prosecution could not allow Raffaele out of the equasion because he would have given Amanda an alibi,I see your point Dan O about Napoeloni being able to accomplish this task on her own,but in her position as a police officer she had access to The cottage,if she really wanted it and also to Raffaele's apartment,although in her problems with her partner she involved a lot of other police officers in breaking the law,she might have involved someone else in planting the bra-clasp evidence,but for now I believe Monica Napoeloni made an amateur attempt to frame Raffaele by planting his DNA on the bra-clasp

 

[anglolawyer]

Absolutely(click). I without a doubt know he was a thief. I'm just saying that this hindsight analysis is flawed. We know that he was in the company of two Spanish women two nights in a row and that they went to a party of a friend of the women. We know that Giacomo or someone in that group invited him in the early hours after drinking in town to party at their cottage apartment. I just don't see that he was a pariah at that time. Now yes, then no.

Sure.

Yes, going to the lawyers was odd. I have no idea why he went to Milan. He might have thought it safer to sell stolen goods from Perugia there. I think he had a relative there. Surely not to break-in to the daycare facility.

No. Maybe he just liked Milan. Didn't he get his picture taken with someone or other (Armani?). I used to like wandering around in London but then I lived in London already. I certainly would not have travelled 450 km to walk around there and sleep rough. Wonder what a hot laptop was worth in Milan in 2007.

 

[anglolawyer]

There were two guys with the school lady. Maybe if she's been alone Rudy wouldn't have been so polite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfA7rrmfedE

 

[Bill Williams]

I am reposting this again b/c I didn't want it get pushed down into obscurity because of my cat fight with the two feminists for Knox. This is of the upmost importance to me now:

What you may be missing is that the posts you make are "pushing you into obscurity", it's not anything anyone else is trying to do, because you seem completely unaware of how marginalized you are making yourself by your content, not people's reaction to it.

Your sole purpose seems to be enjoying making sexualized comments about women, all the while braying about your fundamental right to say whatever you want; all the while implying that THEY are the sluts, while ignoring the slut in your own eye.

Good for you. I am not a proponent of free speech at all costs, but am coming around to thinking that in your case I'll make an exception. You spend copious amounts of time making sexualized comments about people you've never met, and then name call - call people "feminists"..... ooooooooo, they must be hurt to be called THAT! - when they say you're being inappropriate. And then you slaim it is THEM (people you've never met) who are the sluts.... methinks thou dost protest too much!

Strangely, by saying you are being inappropriate they're actually not trying to silence you. Strangely they are doing you a favour; I mean, it actually may not be a concern to you the image of "Dr. Tesla" in cyberspace. The real you can walk away from it at any time I suppose.

Back to regularly scheduled programming - but your posts offer a unique insight into how the internet participates in pulling things off the rails; yet last time I checked a calendar it was 2013.... Your posts are so-2008. My 4 cents.

 

[Grinder]

There were two guys with the school lady. Maybe if she's been alone Rudy wouldn't have been so polite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfA7rrmfedE

Not at all clear that she was with two guys, in fact it was one locksmith and the six year old. She made the point that he was calm and accepted that he had been caught.

Being armed one would think he could have brandished the knife and made a run for it. A locksmith, isn't usually a burly guy like tow truck drivers.

Thanks for the video. Strange that woman that speaks English so well runs a nursery. I certainly had a different image of what the building looked like.

 

[Mary_H]

What you may be missing is that the posts you make are "pushing you into obscurity", it's not anything anyone else is trying to do, because you seem completely unaware of how marginalized you are making yourself by your content, not people's reaction to it.

Your sole purpose seems to be enjoying making sexualized comments about women, all the while braying about your fundamental right to say whatever you want; all the while implying that THEY are the sluts, while ignoring the slut in your own eye.

Good for you. I am not a proponent of free speech at all costs, but am coming around to thinking that in your case I'll make an exception. You spend copious amounts of time making sexualized comments about people you've never met, and then name call - call people "feminists"..... ooooooooo, they must be hurt to be called THAT! - when they say you're being inappropriate. And then you slaim it is THEM (people you've never met) who are the sluts.... methinks thou dost protest too much!

Strangely, by saying you are being inappropriate they're actually not trying to silence you. Strangely they are doing you a favour; I mean, it actually may not be a concern to you the image of "Dr. Tesla" in cyberspace. The real you can walk away from it at any time I suppose.

Back to regularly scheduled programming - but your posts offer a unique insight into how the internet participates in pulling things off the rails; yet last time I checked a calendar it was 2013.... Your posts are so-2008. My 4 cents.

Very nicely said, Bill.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There were two guys with the school lady. Maybe if she's been alone Rudy wouldn't have been so polite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfA7rrmfedE

That was a good video, thanks for that, I had not seen that before.

 

[anglolawyer]

Not at all clear that she was with two guys, in fact it was one locksmith and the six year old. She made the point that he was calm and accepted that he had been caught.

Being armed one would think he could have brandished the knife and made a run for it. A locksmith, isn't usually a burly guy like tow truck drivers.

Thanks for the video. Strange that woman that speaks English so well runs a nursery. I certainly had a different image of what the building looked like.

I can post it but I can't watch it myself for some reason, although I have seen it before so I know what's in it. Good to see you have all gradations of the manual classes off to a T.

 

[anglolawyer]

That was a good video, thanks for that, I had not seen that before.

Pleasure. MichaelB (IIP) found it.

 

[Grinder]

Good to see you have all gradations of the manual classes off to a T.

Otiose. Please explain.

 

[Bill Williams]

what exactly has "gotten of the rails"? none of us are involved in the trial. Just view this as being back in college in your dorm room with your friends and we are just hanging out and sharing our opinions on different stuff. What does it mater to you if I view Knox in a certain way. It's not rational to be so emotionally attached to this girl. Do you know her? Is she a releative, a friend? Are you getting paid to care so much about her? I'm not going to lose sleep over it if she is found innocent. There are a lot of odd things about the Knox case that attracted me to it, some weird, some humorous, and I have never denied that. your seriouss grim advocacy on here isn't going to change one thing about her legal case and from a PR standpoint, most Americans don't know anything about this babe or want to know.

I make few comments about the person of Amanda Knox. I don't know the woman. I make a lot of comments about the evidence of this case.

You, on the other hand, make all sorts of sexualized comments about Amanda Knox as well as the women who use this forum. Unless you were raised in a pre-Internet culture, no this is not a dorm room where you are hanging out with your buddies doing some good, old fashioned (private) slut-shaming.

This is public... and comments last for eternity, thanks to web-archiving services. And like a tattoo you got in the spur of the moment when you were 18 and thought you were in love with someone named "Jasmine", and then married someone named "Clarice", these posts DO contribute to pulling things off the rails.

I fear you also need an education in cyberspace and your role in it.

I find it funny that you accuse me of defending Amanda Knox, when I make few comments about her. I post a lot of comments about Amanda Knox AND Raffaele Sollecito. If you don't know the difference between the singular and the plural on that one then you don't know much about the case.

I post evidence - ad naseum... get criticized for my 11 points as found my Judge Massei which points toward judicial innocence.

You just don't seem to care that the self-embarrassing posts you make about yourself are forever.

 

[anglolawyer]

Otiose. Please explain.

'A locksmith, isn't usually a burly guy like tow truck drivers.'

 

[yimyammer]

The knife was in the game by then,and it was being relied on to convict Amanda along with all of the character asassination that was going on,the prosecution could not allow Raffaele out of the equasion because he would have given Amanda an alibi,I see your point Dan O about Napoeloni being able to accomplish this task on her own,but in her position as a police officer she had access to The cottage,if she really wanted it and also to Raffaele's apartment,although in her problems with her partner she involved a lot of other police officers in breaking the law,she might have involved someone else in planting the bra-clasp evidence,but for now I believe Monica Napoeloni made an amateur attempt to frame Raffaele by planting his DNA on the bra-clasp

How could she pull this off with any level of certainty?

Seems like having access to Raf's apartment wouldn't guarantee her being able to find DNA. Did she have access to him in jail? Seems a rather difficult thing to pull off given its not visible to the naked eye and if she couldn't somehow get Raf to spit in something or swab his mouth, I am having trouble seeing how she could pull this off with a expectation of success commensurate with the risk.

Seems if we're going to say its impossible for AK/Raf to clean up their DNA at a crime scene, then it would also seem rather difficult for Monica to locate usable DNA to plant on the bra clasp and I gravitate toward arguments that are consistent to whatever circumstances they are applied so this one gives me pause.

Maybe she used Amanda's lamp (bad joke)?

 

[yimyammer]

Would planting evidence only against Raffaele be sufficient to cover for the false arrest of the two? Or, is Amanda's arrest already sufficiently covered by the extraction of the false confession?

How could Monica physically accomplish planting this evidence on her own? She would need access to something known to have Raffaele's DNA and either take that to the crime scene or break into the crime scene earlier to bring the clasp to the source of the DNA. In the first case she has to insure that she finds the clasp before anyone else knows it's there or rely on the opportunity to handle the clasp comming up before the clasp is sealed inside the evidence bag. In the second case, she would need the key to enter the cottage and she needs to have the tampering of the seal on the front door covered up. We know the tampering of the seal was covered up but was this her work. Who controls the keys?

can you post a source that discussing this plz? Once again, I am surprised to find something I haven't heard of b4

 

[Bill Williams]

How could she pull this off with any level of certainty?

Seems like having access to Raf's apartment wouldn't guarantee her being able to find DNA. Did she have access to him in jail? Seems a rather difficult thing to pull off given its not visible to the naked eye and if she couldn't somehow get Raf to spit in something or swab his mouth, I am having trouble seeing how she could pull this off with a expectation of success commensurate with the risk.

Seems if we're going to say its impossible for AK/Raf to clean up their DNA at a crime scene, then it would also seem rather difficult for Monica to locate usable DNA to plant on the bra clasp and I gravitate toward arguments that are consistent to whatever circumstances they are applied so this one gives me pause.

Maybe she used Amanda's lamp (bad joke)?

The nature of the DNA on the bra-clasp shows that they almost DIDN'T pull it off. I don't pretend to understand the technicalities of it - the words I use are that it was only a single Y-allele which could have been Raff's, but also 100s of other people (correct me if I am wrong)....

... the real risk was videotaping the "discovery" and then playing that videotape as if anyone was going to fall for it.

When one looks at the condition of the upper floor of the cottage on Dec 18, complete with the condition of the gloves worn by the SP.... it could have been dumb-luck that they found anything resembling Raffaele at all, but not 100% successful dumb luck either because all they found was something inconclusive.

Like the non-blood Meredith DNA on the knife, in a non-existent groove on the blade. People promoting guilt would want to put MEREDITH in big letters on that one, hoping folks will ignore non-blood DNA as well as ignore the fact there isn't a groove there for it to get stuck into after the hypothesized bleach cleaning they made such a big deal about.

As Theodore Simon's DNA expert says, it's as simple as this: no actual blood-DNA on the blade means it's not the murder weapon. Period.

This is what Theodore Simon means when he says, that there simply is no evidence at all pointing to Raffaele and/or Amanda. On what basis is this prosecuted then?

 

[DrTesla]

The nature of the DNA on the bra-clasp shows that they almost DIDN'T pull it off. I don't pretend to understand the technicalities of it - the words I use are that it was only a single Y-allele which could have been Raff's, but also 100s of other people (correct me if I am wrong)....

... the real risk was videotaping the "discovery" and then playing that videotape as if anyone was going to fall for it.

When one looks at the condition of the upper floor of the cottage on Dec 18, complete with the condition of the gloves worn by the SP.... it could have been dumb-luck that they found anything resembling Raffaele at all, but not 100% successful dumb luck either because all they found was something inconclusive.

Like the non-blood Meredith DNA on the knife, in a non-existent groove on the blade. People promoting guilt would want to put MEREDITH in big letters on that one, hoping folks will ignore non-blood DNA as well as ignore the fact there isn't a groove there for it to get stuck into after the hypothesized bleach cleaning they made such a big deal about.

As Theodore Simon's DNA expert says, it's as simple as this: no actual blood-DNA on the blade means it's not the murder weapon. Period.

This is what Theodore Simon means when he says, that there simply is no evidence at all pointing to Raffaele and/or Amanda. On what basis is this prosecuted then?

Bill,
any victim DNA on the blade of the knife = they are going to jail for a long time. your blood vs non-blood thing is pointless, it's all incriminating.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill,
any victim DNA on the blade of the knife = they are going to jail for a long time. your blood vs non-blood thing is pointless, it's all incriminating.

That is not me saying this, it is the former FBI chief DNA expert saying this. The point he is making is: to whom is it incriminating? Not to Knox or Sollecito.... it begs a question as to how non-blood DNA got on the blade in a non-existent groove; and then this was testified to under oath by someone like Stefanoni as being somehow incriminating towards the defence.

That's the point. The fellow is saying that there must be some other route of contamination, other than on the night of the murder. The best that can be said is that this knife was not involved in the murder.

I suppose it could have been dropped at the murder scene and contaminated that way - but the expert says that if it had been cleaned with bleach the material which would have been preserved (in an albeit non-existent groove!) would have been the blood-DNA if there had been any.... not non-blood DNA which would have been the first to go after a bleach cleaning.

In short, this is not the murder weapon. It is incriminating to other people who under oath would say that it was.

 

[Grinder]

Once again the video was live streamed to the defense. They didn't allow them inside but for obvious reasons the defense wanted to observe. I haven't seen the whole video but wouldn't be surprised if they showed other things to the camera as well. if the clasp is the only thing so demonstrated that would be much more incriminating for the ILE.

I suppose DNA could be moved from the inside of a dirty sock or from a blood sample or a toothbrush or the sink at his house.

 

[DrTesla]

That is not me saying this, it is the former FBI chief DNA expert saying this. The point he is making is: to whom is it incriminating? Not to Knox or Sollecito.... it begs a question as to how non-blood DNA got on the blade in a non-existent groove; and then this was testified to under oath by someone like Stefanoni as being somehow incriminating towards the defence.

That's the point. The fellow is saying that there must be some other route of contamination, other than on the night of the murder. The best that can be said is that this knife was not involved in the murder.

I suppose it could have been dropped at the murder scene and contaminated that way - but the expert says that if it had been cleaned with bleach the material which would have been preserved (in an albeit non-existent groove!) would have been the blood-DNA if there had been any.... not non-blood DNA which would have been the first to go after a bleach cleaning.

In short, this is not the murder weapon. It is incriminating to other people who under oath would say that it was.

remember Oggi's Razor,

it got there b/c Knox stuck it right in the victim's neck. just would be some real bad luck for contamination to end up on the blade of a knife at your boyfriend's house if you are accused of murder.

do you really think they are going to win the appeals trial? I think it's going to be another 8-0 jury for conviction.

 

[Bill Williams]

The insight that brought FBI profiler to prominence was that he did not engage in idle speculation about how crime was committed. He had the notion that you actually ask those who do those crimes how they do it.

When John Douglas did that he found that idle speculation was useless. There is a rather unsurprising commonality to crime - and if you then want to solve crimes which have an unknown-perp, or where there is question as to whether or not someone currently in jail IS that perp, then it's probably wise to default to John Douglas's insight.

It is through that lens of on-the-ground experience that John Douglas in his book, "Law and Disorder," examines the case against Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. It's not through the armchair lens of a Monday morning quarterback who relies on a "common sense" that actually does not apply to John Douglas's world.......

.... John Douglas analyses the case through the lens of 25 years of experience of what actually happens in these crimes. His conclusion is that although naive and probably "dumb as posts" to the ways and methods of police (methods that Douglas himself actually proactises!) that these two people, Sollecito and Knox, had absolutely nothing to do with the crime - and demonstrably nothing to do with it.

On top of this, another FBI expert says: if there is no blood-DNA on a knife, then it is not the murder weapon.

This is not idle speculation of someone who is "hoping to goodness" that the two students are innocent - this FBI expert actually doesn't care if they are innocent or guilty. All he's saying is, "no blood-DNA on a knife, then it was not the murder weapon."

It leads others, then, to conclude - I guess the two students, then, are NOT guilty.

It is strange that when one asks those in the field, with actual experience, they are unanimous about innocent. However, the cops with a dog in this fight, are now fighting tooth and nail the other way - charging the innocents with defamation for simply claiming their innocence! Or moving to have their books banned, lest.... horrors.... someone actually read it and became convinced of cop-corruption.

There are some things which are blindingly obvious - if one is willing to be led through evidence by those who know what they are talking about.