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

[Kaosium]

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

See if you can figure out what he's saying here:

Indeed, if one supposes that the stone was thrown from the inside with the shutters pulled closed (as they must have been according to statements cited above), but with the casement holding the pane somewhat open, with the inner shutter behind it, then here is a situation analogous to that of throwing the stone from the outside (the rock would hit the window in the same place as if it came from the outside), and under the shock of the large stone, because of the resistance of the inner shutter behind the window-pane (the shield effect as one might say), the pieces of glass would necessarily fall down on the windowsill both inside and outside (considering the casement as having being only slightly open, and thus the smashed pane positioned near to the windowsill). The presence of the shutters pulled inwards, as described by Romanelli, would have prevented the pieces of glass from falling to the ground below, as indeed they did not, but as they surely would have had the stone been thrown from the outside. As for the presence of glass in Romanelli's room, the violence of the blow, the characteristics of the glass (which was rather thin as indicated by Romanelli and Pasquali), the large rock used, and finally the shield effect caused by the inner shutter hanging half-open behind the glass pane [41] (a position of the inner shutter which corresponds to the scratch on it visible in the photos) give an adequate explanation of the distribution of the glass.

 

[Kaosium]

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.

What I'm wondering is whether you are talking about a contact, or just that citation? Being as Budowle is a leader in the LCN/LT field, he has a lot of papers out on the subject, citing him is natural, as was Theresa Caragine for the same reasons. I had linked papers and/or presentations from both of them long before the release of the Conti-Vecchiotti Report.

 

[GWCarver]

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?

I see your point, but there are many PGP's who think Amanda is guilty for a single reason; I'll concede the few that post here probably don't fall into that category. Just this afternoon we followed a link to debate.com and there were at least two examples in the first few opinions. One said he or she could tell Amanda was guilty just by looking at her. (Giobbi also fits into that category or one of its close relatives.) Another said Amanda killed Meredith because Patrick was going to give Meredith her job.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

There is no evidence of a faked break-in. The sum total of the first day reaciton to the condition of Filomena's room was as the postal police said, "This is no burglary." Indeed it wasn't a burglary, at least not in Filomena's room. After that, both Filomena and Amanda were given the run of the place (pre-body discovery) and even guilter author John Follain says, "Filomena rummaged around in her room."

On that score, the is no reason at all to suspect as supicious that either Knox's or Filomena's trace DNA was found all over the cottage. They lived there for Pete's sake.

What is telling is that there is no forensic presence of Knox in Meredith's room, and that room was gone over with a fine tooth comb.

There is also no mixed blood ANYWHERE in the cottage, as found by Judge Massei and spelled out in Massei's motivations report. Massei says it is "knox's biological material mixed with Meredith's bood." True, Massei saw that as a reason to convict - I believe that the rest of the world sees that us completely unsuspicious. I certainly do not see it as suspicious that Knox's DNA is found anywhere in the cottage, even mixed with trace amounts of Meredith's blood.

You do realize that the reason Massei says that it was proper for Stefanoni NOT to test the semen stain in Meredith's room, a semen stain found on a pillow under her hips, is because Massei ruled that a semen stain cannot be "time-stamped" and he had concluded that Meredith was sexually active?

Well, what Massei's reasoning about Knox's DNA in the cottage is, is this: is CAN be time-stamped. Knox's DNA found in the cottage, he assumes, must have been from the night of the murder. Yes, the very cottage she lived in, and this needs to be held beside there is NO forensic present of Knox in the murder room.... you may think these points are contradictory, but so far ALL of this is simply from the Massei report... if it is contradictory, then it is Massei being contradictory.

Have you ever read the Massei report?

Anyone who knows anything about interrogations knows that the "confession" was forced. The goal of interrogation is always confession, and Knox, as the chief of police admitted, buckled and told them what the police already knew. That could not be a more bald statement that: 1) it was an interrogation, and 2) that it achieved its goal. Knox began retracting the confession as soon as she was free from police, and has not altered her story since.

You look at "all the other evidence" from the point of view of a finding of guilt, a finding that is not sustained by the evidence.

 

[Kaosium]

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?

What is evidence of Raffaele and Amanda being guilty that doesn't suggest fraud or incompetence on the part of the police and prosecution? We can talk about that more if you want!

At least she did buy the undies. She didn't do the cartwheel though, that was just a lie (or exaggeration) by the Polizia di Stato the day that they had to testify on the interrogation. That was the very first mention of it, by the way.

 

[Bill Williams]

I see your point, but there are many PGP's who think Amanda is guilty for a single reason; I'll concede the few that post here probably don't fall into that category. Just this afternoon we followed a link to debate.com and there were at least two examples in the first few opinions. One said he or she could tell Amanda was guilty just by looking at her. (Giobbi also fits into that category or one of its close relatives.) Another said Amanda killed Meredith because Patrick was going to give Meredith her job.

In Mignini's ever changing theory of the crime, that highlighted part was motive #3, and all three motives Mignini offered were rejected even by the convicting court, as Massei himself wrote in his motivations report.

Theory #1, a theory which never made it into court because acc. to guilter author Barbie Nadeau Manuela Comodi threatened to quit the case if Mignini came to court with it, was the "satanic conspiracy" motive.

Theory #2 was the sex-game gone wrong theory, which WAS advance din court.

Theory #3 was the one that Mignini finally settled on which was the "Knox was jealous of Meredith, and Meredith was mad at Knox" theory.

All three were found wanting, because Massei himself wrote in his motivations report that Knox and Sollecito had no motive, they simply "chose evil". Instead of buying into the "Meredith and Amanda" at odds motive, Massei said they had a normal relationship.

People who argue the "Meredith and Amanda were at odds" motive have obviously not read the Massei Report.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I look at the evidence and behavior from a different perspective that's all.

Unfortunately this is the issue, when you look at everything from the perspective that AM and RS are guilty, then everything will point towards that. Start from the position that both are innocent and try and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty, and you'll find it's not so easy as assuming guilt first.

Bill you don't like to look at evidence of a fake break-in

The problem with the evidence of staged break in is that it falls apart when examined without assumptions.

You need to assume that no one could have climbed the wall. You need to assume that the shutters were nearly closed when the rock was thrown. You need to assume that glass would be thrown out backwards to the lawn. You need to assume that a burglar would have pulled out glass and dropped it below. You need to assume that such a burglar was interested in stealing large electronic items over drugs and cash. Once you start removing the assumptions and asking, is it possible? You get different answers.

or a mixed blood and DNA deposit in Filomena's room.

Well firstly it is not proven fact that the stain in Filomena's room was actually blood. Secondly, the reading of Amanda was very low and as she lived in the house and had likely go into Filomena's room at sometime, can you positively prove that the stain, Meredith's DNA, and Amanda's DNA all were deposited on that spot on the night of the murders? Can you even honestly claim that there is a 90% chance of this?

DNA found well it was planted right?

Other than the clasp which even you must surely admit has a rather dubious history during that 47 days, what evidence is there of planting? There is a lot of evidence of poorly conducted forensics, and badly interpreted data, but personally I see little evidence of planting DNA.

Confession well it was forced.

Even Mignini admits that the Police use a specific interview technique that is well known for producing false confessions. The fact that Amanda's so called confession contains exactly what the police already knew and nothing more is a pretty clear indicator that she simply regurgitated what they told her was the truth, especially since it was totally wrong.

Changing stories who cares.

If you want to play the changing stories card, how many times did the police change the motive? How many times did the prosecution witnesses change their stories? How about the entire change in the TOD? AK and RS changed their stories once, when under intensive police interview using tactics that are known to cause false statements. Once out of the interview room they changed back again to their original and haven't changed since.

 

[Briars]

There is no evidence of a faked break-in. The sum total of the first day reaciton to the condition of Filomena's room was as the postal police said, "This is no burglary." Indeed it wasn't a burglary, at least not in Filomena's room. After that, both Filomena and Amanda were given the run of the place (pre-body discovery) and even guilter author John Follain says, "Filomena rummaged around in her room."

On that score, the is no reason at all to suspect as supicious that either Knox's or Filomena's trace DNA was found all over the cottage. They lived there for Pete's sake.

What is telling is that there is no forensic presence of Knox in Meredith's room, and that room was gone over with a fine tooth comb.

There is also no mixed blood ANYWHERE in the cottage, as found by Judge Massei and spelled out in Massei's motivations report. Massei says it is "knox's biological material mixed with Meredith's bood." True, Massei saw that as a reason to convict - I believe that the rest of the world sees that us completely unsuspicious. I certainly do not see it as suspicious that Knox's DNA is found anywhere in the cottage, even mixed with trace amounts of Meredith's blood.

You do realize that the reason Massei says that it was proper for Stefanoni NOT to test the semen stain in Meredith's room, a semen stain found on a pillow under her hips, is because Massei ruled that a semen stain cannot be "time-stamped" and he had concluded that Meredith was sexually active?

Well, what Massei's reasoning about Knox's DNA in the cottage is, is this: is CAN be time-stamped. Knox's DNA found in the cottage, he assumes, must have been from the night of the murder. Yes, the very cottage she lived in, and this needs to be held beside there is NO forensic present of Knox in the murder room.... you may think these points are contradictory, but so far ALL of this is simply from the Massei report... if it is contradictory, then it is Massei being contradictory.

Have you ever read the Massei report?

Anyone who knows anything about interrogations knows that the "confession" was forced. The goal of interrogation is always confession, and Knox, as the chief of police admitted, buckled and told them what the police already knew. That could not be a more bald statement that: 1) it was an interrogation, and 2) that it achieved its goal. Knox began retracting the confession as soon as she was free from police, and has not altered her story since.

You look at "all the other evidence" from the point of view of a finding of guilt, a finding that is not sustained by the evidence.

Just a couple of points as its late. First you can't wave away a deposit of DNA and blood that Massei said was deposited simultaneously in Filomena's room. That was a random blob co mixed in a room that belonged to neither girl. You are taking liberty to call it a semen stain when that was never determined to be that. It could have been urine from the victim. Knox did not retract her statement , it took her how many weeks to realize it couldn't really have been Lumumba. She contradicts what Donnino said about her interrogation. She was treated well, offered refreshments and a nap. Donnino's testimony was completely credible unlike Amanda's.

 

[yimyammer]

See if you can figure out what he's saying here:

I find this hard to follow, are they saying that somehow the rock was thrown from the inside with the interior windows and the exterior shutters partially closed?

This seems pretty awkward to me and I wouldn't expect to see glass strewn into the room like I saw in various photos. It would seem the force of the rock, if thrown where they say it was, would cause this partially open window to swing open even further toward the cabinet and the broken glass would congregate in that limited area, not be found strewn into the room. Plus I wouldn't expect to see any glass on the sill in this scenario.

I'm not even sure I understand what they are saying happened

 

[Kaosium]

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?

There's no mixed blood in Filomena's bedroom, that tested negative for blood, they just lied about that until they were caught. Why don't police and prosecution lies about important things where there's definite evidence they knew better (they did those tests themselves and they were in their own files!) matter in the slightest, but you seem to care about whether or not Amanda mentioned she saw a purse when she looked through the keyhole?

Where did you ever get the idea that swabbing about and finding DNA of two people who lived there is in the slightest bit suspicious? Especially when it's on the other side of the house from the murder room, with nothing connecting the two?

Confession well it was forced.

It was also non-incriminating, at least in the substance of it. What did Amanda do in the course of those statements that you think she deserves punishment for? Being a scared girl while a violent man kills someone and (supposedly) blacking out and not remembering until a few days later? You'd punish her for that? Why?

Changing stories who cares.

Doesn't it matter to you the police admitted they'd changed both their stories, liked them better as they fit 'the facts we knew to be correct' and then have it turn out that (almost) nothing about them actually fit the facts?

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.

It appears that it is from a predetermined one that is incapable of realizing anything that suggests innocence or even holding the police--who should be held to a far higher one--to the same standard.

How is it possible not to have a doubt in this case? Or do you consider yourself unreasonable?

 

[yimyammer]

Can anyone confirm whether I am remembering something correctly or not?

I thought I read somewhere that when Amanda came back to the cottage around 10 am, she walked into Filomena's room, perhaps while being barefoot. Did I dream this up? If not, does anyone have a source that confirms this?

 

[Kaosium]

I find this hard to follow,

Really! How could you, he's so clear and what he's describing is so obvious for how two stoned kids would 'stage' a break-in after a heady night of raping and murdering.

(don't worry--I didn't get it at first either and men with doctorates have been defeated by that passage!)

are they saying that somehow the rock was thrown from the inside with the interior windows and the exterior shutters partially closed?

Kind of. First take a look at the picture, I chose that one to show how the inner shutter also swings free of the window, this is a better overall one. What he's saying is the outer shutters (to the outside) are completely closed, and the window is then opened up with the inner shutter behind it. The rock hits the window thrown from the side (across the widow casement opening) and bounces off the inner shutter at the perfect angle deflecting glass back towards the outer shutters and falling to the sill, while the rest 'adequately' simulates what it actually looked like from the rock coming from the outside as it bounces off the inner shutter into the room.

This seems pretty awkward to me and I wouldn't expect to see glass strewn into the room like I saw in various photos.

Yeah, that's not 'adequate' enough for me, either. You know how he solves it? By cherry-picking a line from the ballistics expert where he says "here we have an infinity of possible variations" meaning it's impossible to predict with certainty where all the glass would go. That's true, but it doesn't mean it can go anywhere at all!

It would seem the force of the rock, if thrown where they say it was, would cause this partially open window to swing open even further toward the cabinet and the broken glass would congregate in that limited area, not be found strewn into the room. Plus I wouldn't expect to see any glass on the sill in this scenario.

I'm not even sure I understand what they are saying happened

Don't worry about that, it's for entertainment purposes only.

 

[RandyN]

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

Yep...Neaderthals had bigger brains...but it didnt help them out much. Its been determined that Europeans from around Italy have about 4% Neaderthal DNA the highest of any region...Africans have the lowest or even 0....

Maybe this explains Italian logic???Ugg.

 

[Kaosium]

Can anyone confirm whether I am remembering something correctly or not?

I thought I read somewhere that when Amanda came back to the cottage around 10 am, she walked into Filomena's room, perhaps while being barefoot. Did I dream this up? If not, does anyone have a source that confirms this?

No, I don't think that happened at all. She did not know of the break-in when she went to Raffaele's and would have had she opened Filomena's door.

However at any time the past couple months she might have walked in Filomena's room, or whatever it was that lit up the luminol was sticky and that's why traces of Meredith, Amanda and Filomena adhered to that spot, like dust bunnies caught in amber.

 

[RandyN]

I think you are very mistaken.



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.

So in short you are saying that Stefanoni did the tests and Biondo confirmed those tests as perfect. Therefore Massei is correct to go with those results. This in spite of his witness to actual withholding of discovery material from the defense. In fact he ordered the material turned over and closed court early to give the defense time to catch up.

The problem is that other than Stefanoni and Company no reliable honest scientist confirms her conclusions. It is the prosecutions whores lining up to confirm what is impossible to determine.

As for C&V refusing to test some supposed sample...that's ridiculous. The prosecution was represented at the testing and no one complained that C&V refused to test anything.

Only after the scathing review that found Stefanonis work invalid and not up to any standard of any world class scientists did the prosecution start squawking about more testing.

Recall that it was the prosecution that objected to the opening of the knife handle. Now they want more testing? Your arguments are weak and illogical. Just like the prosecutions whole case. And this go around it will all be revealed.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Just a couple of points as its late. First you can't wave away a deposit of DNA and blood that Massei said was deposited simultaneously in Filomena's room. That was a random blob co mixed in a room that belonged to neither girl.

It was never shown to be blood, all of the luminol spots tested negitive on further testing for blood.

What training does Massei have in the appropriate sciences? He basically accepted the claims of the police, claims that are scientifically wrong.

You are taking liberty to call it a semen stain when that was never determined to be that. It could have been urine from the victim.

Don't you think that regardlessof what it was it should have been tested to determine if it was relevant to the case?

Knox did not retract her statement , it took her how many weeks to realize it couldn't really have been Lumumba.

In the handwritten letter that morning she makes it quite clear that she is totally confused, that she doesn't believe what she told the police but because they insisted she was there and claim to have hard evidence of it that she is unable to tell what is true and what isn't. She repeated the account that she was at Raff's place and says that is what she believes happened, but that the police's interview and question has left her confused over it all, that the ideas and flashbvacks of Patrick are "unreal" to her.

She states:

In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.

She clearly says the next morning. I'm pretty sure that the statements I gave last night were not true.

She contradicts what Donnino said about her interrogation. She was treated well, offered refreshments and a nap. Donnino's testimony was completely credible unlike Amanda's.

Without using any assumptions, why?

 

[Dan O.]

See if you can figure out what he's saying here:

It's quite simple realy. The outer shutters arer closed. The window is open enough to swing the rock through it from behind and the inner shutter is open just a little further to act as a deflector to scatter the flying glass into the room.

The problem is that it won't work. And the easiest way to demonstrate that it won't work is to point out that in all these years, no one has managed to setup a demonstration showing it working.

 

[Kaosium]

Just a couple of points as its late. First you can't wave away a deposit of DNA and blood that Massei said was deposited simultaneously in Filomena's room.

He can't know that, all he can do is try to piece together the evidence the prosecution offered as best he can, that he has to rely on dubious contentions reveals the weakness of the case.

That was a random blob co mixed in a room that belonged to neither girl.

And wasn't 'discovered' until six weeks after the initial forensic sweep after everyone and their brother had been tromping through there with Amanda's and Meredith's DNA about. Even if it was blood there's no reason to think it was the result of the murder, there's nothing connecting it to the murder room. Nothing.

You are taking liberty to call it a semen stain when that was never determined to be that.

Did you ever wonder why not? Here's a stain that looks like semen under a crimescope at the site of a rape-murder that's been smeared by a shoeprint (of which there were many!) and the police refuse to test it because it might interfere with their shoeprint evidence?

It could have been urine from the victim.

Found where it was, that may be. However there's something even more likely.

Knox did not retract her statement , it took her how many weeks to realize it couldn't really have been Lumumba.

That's a flat out lie. She wrote to them the day she signed the statements before she even knew Patrick had been arrested that she didn't think any of it ever happened and she couldn't be used as 'testimone.' She then wrote them the very next day to tell them she was sure she hadn't been at the cottage. She then wrote her lawyers twice on the ninth (recently posted on this board!) saying the same thing. On the tenth the police taped a conversation with her mother with her saying she knew it hadn't happened and she felt bad.

She contradicts what Donnino said about her interrogation. She was treated well, offered refreshments and a nap. Donnino's testimony was completely credible unlike Amanda's.

Domino's testimony is creepy as hell, and she didn't see the whole thing, she comes in and Amanda is crying and distressed, but it correlates better with Amanda's for the most part, not Napoleoni, Zugarini and Ficarra.

 

[RandyN]

So remind me again....

How does Vogt get letters written by Knox to her lawyers? How would these letters be anything but confidential communication between the defendant and her lawyer? Is the deck actually stacked this badly against every person who finds themselves a defendant in Italy?

The diplomatic cables are one thing with FOIA but these letters should have never even be allowed in court much less released into the hand of one of the worst tabloid story tellers in the whole case.

OK and use some logic...who do you think came up with the meaningless discrepancies? The Machine, Pervert Quinell or Vogt? Vogt has proven herself to be a mouth piece for these kooks. They pour over the documents looking for missing periods ...Vogt is fed the bull and she writes what she thinks is strongest. She fails to realize how clouded and simplistic her arguments have become. A purse or nothing. Well that settles it then...GUILTY! What a maroon......

 

[Kaosium]

It's quite simple realy. The outer shutters arer closed. The window is open enough to swing the rock through it from behind and the inner shutter is open just a little further to act as a deflector to scatter the flying glass into the room.

The problem is that it won't work. And the easiest way to demonstrate that it won't work is to point out that in all these years, no one has managed to setup a demonstration showing it working.

Well, maybe if it was tried an infinite number of times that variation of possibilities would come up!

Actually I don't think you'd ever get it with the glass flying out to the carpet bouncing off the inner shutter.