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

[yimyammer]

* No glass outside (Various people)

funny thing about the glass issue to me is the number of cases I've seen where the perp attempted to stage a break in but made the mistake of breaking a glass window or door from the inside, causing the glass to end up on the outside.

In this unique case, not finding glass on the outside is evidence of a staging.

I suppose if they had found glass on the outside, then the argument would be that the window was broken from the inside, thus staged

damned either way

 

[Grinder]

funny thing about the glass issue to me is the number of cases I've seen where the perp attempted to stage a break in but made the mistake of breaking a glass window or door from the inside, causing the glass to end up on the outside.

In this unique case, not finding glass on the outside is evidence of a staging.

I suppose if they had found glass on the outside, then the argument would be that the window was broken from the inside, thus staged

damned either way

Amanda wrote: We waited for a little inside, I put the mop away, but then we went outside to see Filomena's window. I couldn't figure out why someone would break the window if it looked impossible to get to to climb into.

My god she writes oddly, "if it looked" , did it look impossible or not.

 

[Kaosium]

funny thing about the glass issue to me is the number of cases I've seen where the perp attempted to stage a break in but made the mistake of breaking a glass window or door from the inside, causing the glass to end up on the outside.

In this unique case, not finding glass on the outside is evidence of a staging.

I suppose if they had found glass on the outside, then the argument would be that the window was broken from the inside, thus staged

damned either way

That brings up something Kevin caused me to think of recently: there's so many people out there who have taken the contentions of ILE and Mignini as though they must be legitimate forensic work. I agree with you, the lack of glass on the outside is not indicative of a rock being thrown from the outside, a significant amount outside would suggest the rock was thrown from the inside and be indicative of staging, but that's not what they found.

Oh, have you ever read the prosecution theory of how the window was broken? That's always good for a laugh, and it 'explains' how there's no glass outside even though there might have been tiny shards had they looked closely enough.

 

[yimyammer]

If guilty, it would have made more sense for them to discover the body and enter the room. They certainly would have thought that their DNA would be found in the murder room but if they went in and tried to save her they would have had reason for it to be there. They could have lifted her to the bed. They would have blood all over themselves for legitimate reasons.

I hear you but from what I've seen so far of PLE, I just don't think they would have dismissed their involvement and would probably make the argument you just did.

Now they have their footprints and who knows what else in the room to try to explain to an audience that knew they were guilty simply by looking at them.

As far as "if guilty" I can think of a myriad of things they would have done differently, for one--->over acting the part of the emotional and sad roommate who just lost her friend but instead she did the splits and made crass jokes.

 

[yimyammer]

Oh, have you ever read the prosecution theory of how the window was broken? That's always good for a laugh, and it 'explains' how there's no glass outside even though there might have been tiny shards had they looked closely enough.

I haven't, do you have a link or page number of Massei?

This case drives home my belief there will never be peace in this world

 

[Grinder]

I hear you but from what I've seen so far of PLE, I just don't think they would have dismissed their involvement and would probably make the argument you just did.

Now they have their footprints and who knows what else in the room to try to explain to an audience that knew they were guilty simply by looking at them.

As far as "if guilty" I can think of a myriad of things they would have done differently, for one--->over acting the part of the emotional and sad roommate who just lost her friend but instead she did the splits and made crass jokes.

But I'm not saying what the PLE would do but rather what they could have done to cover any evidence in the room. They couldn't possibly know they had left no DNA or ?

They could have wiped the faucet blood away, not staged the burglary and left the mat soaking in the shower or tossed somewhere and gone on to Gubbio. Left their phones off or ignored them and then at some point noticed the text or email and come racing back. Maybe have a minor wreak on the way back.

The tired idea that Amanda with little language skills or Raf, the timid, could control the investigation is hysterical.

But it's all over now because she says she didn't see the purse...damning.

 

[yimyammer]

But I'm not saying what the PLE would do but rather what they could have done to cover any evidence in the room. They couldn't possibly know they had left no DNA or ?

They could have wiped the faucet blood away, not staged the burglary and left the mat soaking in the shower or tossed somewhere and gone on to Gubbio. Left their phones off or ignored them and then at some point noticed the text or email and come racing back. Maybe have a minor wreak on the way back.

The tired idea that Amanda with little language skills or Raf, the timid, could control the investigation is hysterical.

But it's all over now because she says she didn't see the purse...damning.

I understand, I'm simply saying that would have backfired on them IMO. Of course in that scenario they would be guilty and backfiring would be a good thing

 

[GWCarver]

funny thing about the glass issue to me is the number of cases I've seen where the perp attempted to stage a break in but made the mistake of breaking a glass window or door from the inside, causing the glass to end up on the outside.

In this unique case, not finding glass on the outside is evidence of a staging.

I suppose if they had found glass on the outside, then the argument would be that the window was broken from the inside, thus staged

damned either way

Yep. If Amanda had jumped up a yelled, "I smell blood", it would have been proof she was guilty. No one else crowded around the door smelled the blood, so Amanda must have already known the blood was there.

 

[Dan O.]

I don't think so, I'm pretty sure that has come up before, I betcha it's in the Cartwheel's thread. Somewhat different formulation though, you see in her e-mail home she didn't mention the keyhole or the purse at all!

Yes, it did come up here before. We were discussing the particular lock on the interrior doors and trying to determine if these locks like many of their modern counterparts had privacy plates that prevented spying on the occupant within.

 

[Machiavelli]

Not only Italian law doesn't prohibit it, it openly accepts that appointed experts are free to communicate with the defendant and with whoever they wish.

You dream my friend. If you are saying that C & V did communicate with Budowle over the redaction of their report, then just state that.

 

[Machiavelli]

I wonder if maybe I missed something, what are you and Bill talking about regarding an informal contact?

I mean a contact which was not declared to or supervised by a judge or by parties within an official event (such as an incidente probatorio). And that did not take place in court.

 

[Mary_H]

You have a big head? No!

Look at it this way - big brain, thick skull, or both - how can it be anything but an advantage?

Yup. Although, they say it's not the size, it's the number of convolutions. The brain's, that is.

 

[Briars]

But I'm not saying what the PLE would do but rather what they could have done to cover any evidence in the room. They couldn't possibly know they had left no DNA or ?

They could have wiped the faucet blood away, not staged the burglary and left the mat soaking in the shower or tossed somewhere and gone on to Gubbio. Left their phones off or ignored them and then at some point noticed the text or email and come racing back. Maybe have a minor wreak on the way back.

The tired idea that Amanda with little language skills or Raf, the timid, could control the investigation is hysterical.

But it's all over now because she says she didn't see the purse...damning.

Another annoying habit on this site is to take one point out of many and say 'well that makes her guilty'. Like cartwheel = guilt. It's a tiresome tactic that only her defenders use.

 

[Machiavelli]

But Biondo was neutral? Or since he testified his bias is overlooked? Here in America we call that a conflict of interest. It would never be allowed in court. The defense would be able to invalidate the whole DNA investigation based on this incestuous relationship with the prosecution alone.

Is there proof that Budowle was employed by the defense or that he lied to the experts? Or does he merely confirm what all the text books and manuals clearly explain as proper handling and examination of DNA?

But Biondo was a witness, he was official, contacts with him did not occur before and did not surreptitiously influence Stefanoni's report; moreover - albeit not important - he is also neutral in the sense that he is neutral about the defendants (not 'neutral' about Stefanoni of course, but Stefanoni is a witness not a defendant, and Biondo just a further corroboration witness). Everything regarding Biondo's testimony is obviously neutral and legal because it is done "ex-post": Stefanoni's work with tests was already over, her report already submitted; and Stefanoni is not a judge appointed expert, and all her contacts were declared.
But contacts between C & V occurred at a time when these contacts were prohibited. And they were undeclared. Of course there is evidence that Budowle was working for the defence, and that C & V illegaly leaked secret information about their findings before their report was disclosed.

 

[GWCarver]

Another annoying habit on this site is to take one point out of many and say 'well that makes her guilty'. Like cartwheel = guilt. It's a tiresome tactic that only her defenders use.

Are there any PGP's who don't think the "cartwheels" are incriminating? I think that it is something that has been mentioned more than any other piece of "evidence" in these discussions over the years.

 

[Machiavelli]

I notice you never comment on the content of the C-V report. I am pretty sure it's because you don't understand it.

I think you are very mistaken.

That makes it easier for you to believe its conclusions are the product of a masonic conspiracy or some bitchy antagonism between Vechiotti and Stefanoni (with Conti a hapless bystander).

With which of their conclusions do you disagree and, by reference to the facts they record rather than dietrological fantasy, why?

I have already explained points about this on other forums.
But anyway the matter of disagreement with the report was not my argument here.

Without getting into any detail, their report is basically pointless. Their arguments are just a repetition of defence arguments already dismissed by Massei. If I were the judge, I wouldn't see any finding in their report nor rational argument that would add something to all what was already known.
Their report is simply entirely pointless, on all factual parts.
They build reasoning based on open and obvious lies - such as the deliberate assumption that negative controls don't exist, or pointls reasoning based on false assumptions which are also violations of the law (such as the interpretation 'guidelines' - which moreover leads them to a pointless and contradictory reasoning).
Their judgemental statements instead, such as when they talk about what Stefanoni shouod have done, or about "why" thy find the results "non probative", or their failure to provide any legitimate explanation for why not testing the knife sample they found, are just void blathering, rethoric devoid of any content, totally unsupported and illegitimate.
Not to speak about their testimonies, where they failed to grasps basics about the law on court experts (albeit they are legal doctors!), or when they answered about contamination that "everything is possible" and things like that.

 

[Bill Williams]

Another annoying habit on this site is to take one point out of many and say 'well that makes her guilty'. Like cartwheel = guilt. It's a tiresome tactic that only her defenders use.

Are there any PGP's who don't think the "cartwheels" are incriminating? I think that it is something that has been mentioned more than any other piece of "evidence" in these discussions over the years.

Briars can correct me if wrong, but I think Briars is commenting that PIP sometimes say of PGP (like Briars) that she is ONLY guilty because of a cartwheel.

Unless I am mistaken, Briars and others simply assign this to "all the other evidence", that they think proves guilt when taken in total.

After following this for the past 18 months, I have gone in depth on some of these individal item comprising, "all the other evidence," and have read at a surface level more of them. In my opinion the case against Knox and Sollecito, never once organized as a comprehensive narrative, is a mile wide and an inch deep.

In my opinion even when taken in total, there is nothing there. Doing the spilts (at the suggestion of a male cop!), not smelling blood, saying "ta-da", wearing an "All you need is love" T-Shirt in court means...... what?

When put beside a lack of forensic evidence that she'd ever been in the room, no motive or psychopathology attributable to either of them, no prior relationship with Guede for either of them, no bad relationship between Knox and Kercher, and on and on and on.....

What does the PGP's "all the other evidence" add up to?

 

[Briars]

It and the underwear buying is the sum of the evidence against her according to the filtered news reaching the US. Supporters often go on about those minor points, wonder why?

 

[Bill Williams]

But Biondo was a witness, he was official, contacts with him did not occur before and did not surreptitiously influence Stefanoni's report; moreover - albeit not important - he is also neutral in the sense that he is neutral about the defendants (not 'neutral' about Stefanoni of course, but Stefanoni is a witness not a defendant, and Biondo just a further corroboration witness). Everything regarding Biondo's testimony is obviously neutral and legal because it is done "ex-post": Stefanoni's work with tests was already over, her report already submitted; and Stefanoni is not a judge appointed expert, and all her contacts were declared.
But contacts between C & V occurred at a time when these contacts were prohibited. And they were undeclared. Of course there is evidence that Budowle was working for the defence, and that C & V illegaly leaked secret information about their findings before their report was disclosed.

It is really hard to take you seriously, Machiavelli, when you argue that Biono is neutral.

And why bother trying to vilify Conti and Vecchiotti? Wasn't the supervising Judge who would be supervising these mythical "prohibitions" be Judge Hellmann? He's part of the Masonic conspiracy acc. to you.

It is hard to take you seriously.

 

[Briars]

Bill you don't like to look at evidence of a fake break-in or a mixed blood and DNA deposit in Filomena's room. DNA found well it was planted right? Confession well it was forced. Changing stories who cares. Mignini is responsible right. You have your finger on the whole corrupt mess. The Italian blogger wanted in his own domestic incidents gave you the real scoop. I look at the evidence and behavior from a different perspective that's all.