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

[Kaosium]

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......

I'm not sure...actually I have no idea, I've only recently seen them myself. Perhaps the lawyers released them at some point?

 

[Dan O.]

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?

Around Nov. 5, the newspapers were printing quotes from the autopsy saying things like semen was found among other places in the victim's rectum. Rudy expresses concern in his Skype call that they found sperm in the victim. In Amanda's email home she mentions being questioned about Meredith's sex life including anal sex. Yet later we are being told that it's not certain that there was sexual contact.

 

[Antony]

Brilliant, you--not them. It must have made so much sense to them, especially going off statistics that indicate much of the time a murderer is close to, or even lives with, the victim.

Correction: "much of the time someone convicted of murder is close to, or even lives with, the victim".

From what I can see, a defendant being closely connected to the victim is a strong indicator of a miscarriage of justice. That's one of the things that first told me that there was something wrong with this case.

 

[NancyS]

Looking through a key hole and seeing your missing flatmates purse on the bed is significant . Deciding to omit that from your memoir makes it perhaps more so. Making up dialogue, which seems to be the new thing around here isn't dealing with the revised stories.

This kind of thinking is part of what has kept this case going on and on, against all reason amd sense. Memory is never exact and nobody can give an entirely accurate description of an event - every time someone runs through an event it will be slightly different and will remember either more or less detail. Amanda's memories after four years of reflecting on the night are inevitably going to be slightly different.

I work as a hospital doctor and take medical histories as part of my job. My junior takes a history from a patient, when I go to review I get a slightly different story - later they see the consultant who gets a different story again. We speak to a family member and we get an even more different story - the next day there will be different stories again and on and on

Memory is never ever exact and what you will remember is hugely dependent on what questions you are being asked - in medicine we are trained to avoid leading questions as people are likely to agree even when it's not true - I can bet the exact opposite strategies are sometimes used by police

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Around Nov. 5, the newspapers were printing quotes from the autopsy saying things like semen was found among other places in the victim's rectum. Rudy expresses concern in his Skype call that they found sperm in the victim. In Amanda's email home she mentions being questioned about Meredith's sex life including anal sex. Yet later we are being told that it's not certain that there was sexual contact.

The Perugian law enforcement community's interest in Meredith's sexual practices, reported in Amanda's email and in her recent book, was always a bit of an oddity. It would make sense of that oddity if a rumour was doing the rounds that semen had been found in the victim's rectum.

I imagine this hypothetical rumour turned out to be false because no such thing was mentioned in the Massei report. I can't for the moment see any conspiracy theory about them covering up such a result that makes any sense, so the parsimonious theory seems to be that is was just a salacious rumour.

 

[Briars]

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?



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?



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?



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?

I'm not sure how you can't understand how a mixture of the victim's blood co mingled with the defendants DNA in a random spot on the floor is significant. Lets just look at the two spots in Filomena's room,belonging to neither girl, for simplicity . You and others like to point out Amanda's contribution cannot be determined definitely to be blood, So even if it was just Amanda's DNA mixing with Meredith's blood in a small spot in Filomena's room Massei said vigorous hand washing could have released skin DNA and that mixed with the victim's blood.

 

[Briars]

Nancy The purse was not a random memory like 'scooting on a mat' or the white color of her skirt.Or taking out her earring?? It was a glimpse of something personal of the missing girl seen just before Sollecito tried to break her door down.That's not something you would forget.

 

[Briars]

Sollecito has recently said he sent emails from his computer to his professors the night of the murder. This is a startling development. He stands by that statement on his ask.fm site. Something that can still be verified to be true or another story.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Stefanoni did not withhold anything. I have already proven this elsewhere, and nobody was able to rebutt the point.

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.

But even prof. Novelli was called as a witness. Who are you to decide someone is 'not honest' or a "whore", with a shred of evidence?

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.

This is false. Both the prosecution and the civil party objected, their objection was put in the records.

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.

Actually it was Vecchiotti the one who was ordered to perform a test, he performed tests and found one sample positive at quanization - in her testimony she liead about the actual quantization, it was not 5 picograms but 150 picograms, as Stefanoni demonstrated - but Vecchiotti refused to extract a profile from it.
This is a further crime, because there is a possible case of destruction of evidence; it's that simple.

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.

It seems to me entirely logical. There is nothing you can obiect. The ones who violated the law and cheated are V & C.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

If I say contacts, I mean contacts, that is communications not citations.

Anyway, Vecchiotti also inserted several citations which are not natural at all, they don't have any place nor authority in an academic contexts - such as partol police textbooks (it's like citing the Ljubiana City Police handbook, as if it was scientific literature).

 

[Machiavelli]

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

Biondo (not 'Biono'), and he is neutral but actually also Stefanoni is neutral; but I also said that this is not the important thing: you have to look at the illegal circumstances in which C & V contacts with Budowle occurred.

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.

Every individual is responsible for their action. Nobody has a duty to supervie adults to prevant them from committing crimes, or anyway such a duty won't make their personal responsabilities go away. I am not just 'vilifying' Conti and Vecchiotti, I am only noting that thei are objectively vile. They are adults, they have specific requirements as experts and they are responsible for what they do.

 

[Antony]

Stefanoni did not withhold anything. I have already proven this elsewhere, and nobody was able to rebutt the point.

You mean you posted it in PMF? This is where anyone who argues the innocence of the 2 defendants or criticises the investigation is banned from posting.

In fact, anyone who followed the ordinary news reporting of the appeal trial will know that Hellmann had to delay the trial for a month because of Stefanoni's prevarication and obfuscation over providing details of the tests.

...

Actually it was Vecchiotti the one who was ordered to perform a test, he performed tests and found one sample positive at quanization - in her testimony she liead about the actual quantization, it was not 5 picograms but 150 picograms, as Stefanoni demonstrated - but Vecchiotti refused to extract a profile from it.

So it is Stefanoni's word against Vecchiotti? I know which one to trust.

This is a further crime, because there is a possible case of destruction of evidence; it's that simple.

This would be funny if it wasn't in the context of trying to get 2 innocent students locked up for half their lives. This is a case where there were destroyed hard drives, missing interrogation recordings, missing CCTV, failure to test a likely sperm stain - and a piece of evidence claimed by the prosecution to be crucial, rusted so as to be useless. All of this occurred in police hands.

 

[Grinder]

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.

You featured the change in whether she saw the purse or not in a few recent posts. You say it is important because added to the window, blood drops and other things it makes the scene more urgent. You ignore that they did call multiple people including the police. Also, you ignore that the police waited for Filomena to have her friend break the door down.

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?

The purse conversation is a major topic on a discussion board over there. The PGP have written about minor points for years. In fact just yesterday a rabbit was positing that without the purse she didn't see why Amanda was concerned at all.

The inexplicable panic about getting into Meredith's room is incredibly damning. If you'd banged on the door and looked through the keyhole and seen nothing, a logical assumption would of course be that Meredith isn't there. Why on earth would AK be so frantic to get in?

 

[yimyammer]

Sollecito has recently said he sent emails from his computer to his professors the night of the murder. This is a startling development. He stands by that statement on his ask.fm site. Something that can still be verified to be true or another story.

No kidding...... I didn't like his reply, why leave it to PLE? Get the damn records and present them at trial but as far as I can tell, they didn't

He later made this reply which makes no sense to me:

If you wrote e-mails that would exonerate you, and they are sitting on servers, why weren't they a part of your defense?‎ Olivija Sacco

Raf: you didn't follow the case ... The emails weren't important for the night of the murder but for other days, because of some ******** witness and we showed it.

 

[Machiavelli]

You mean you posted it in PMF? This is where anyone who argues the innocence of the 2 defendants or criticises the investigation is banned from posting.

No I mean on IIP, where the rare people who post making a case for justice are targeted with ad hominem insults or racist slurs.

In fact, anyone who followed the ordinary news reporting of the appeal trial will know that Hellmann had to delay the trial for a month because of Stefanoni's prevarication and obfuscation over providing details of the tests.

The "ordinary news reportin"? What the heck the 'ordinary news reporting' is?
You should read the trial papers and know a bit of law instead of followint US media coverage.

So it is Stefanoni's word against Vecchiotti?

But no, it is just evidence versus foolish claims.

This would be funny if it wasn't in the context of trying to get 2 innocent students locked up for half their lives. This is a case where there were destroyed hard drives, missing interrogation recordings, missing CCTV, failure to test a likely sperm stain - and a piece of evidence claimed by the prosecution to be crucial, rusted so as to be useless. All of this occurred in police hands.

And this is noting but the propaganda narrative. There is a case of dirty information campaign here, as well as the systematic twisting by a defence campaing af any piece of truth. But this only flies in the American public. None of those argument could exist in the Italian context where the trial is hold, and these 'arguments' in fact simply do not belong to the actual trial. Simply none of these make sense, these are retorics, these claims are all false or their meaning is crooked by ignorance and rethoric.

 

[Bill Williams]

This would be funny if it wasn't in the context of trying to get 2 innocent students locked up for half their lives. This is a case where there were destroyed hard drives, missing interrogation recordings, missing CCTV, failure to test a likely sperm stain - and a piece of evidence claimed by the prosecution to be crucial, rusted so as to be useless. All of this occurred in police hands.

And this is noting but the propaganda narrative. There is a case of dirty information campaign here, as well as the systematic twisting by a defence campaing af any piece of truth. But this only flies in the American public. None of those argument could exist in the Italian context where the trial is hold, and these 'arguments' in fact simply do not belong to the actual trial. Simply none of these make sense, these are retorics, these claims are all false or their meaning is crooked by ignorance and rethoric.

Strange, this sounds a lot like the defence narrative. Calling the the "propaganda narrative" is the way the prosecution would refer to it in court, and they would refer to it as if that was a factual rendering.

So on the face of it - regardless of Italy or America.... are you denying that:

1) the harddrives were destroyed?
2) the interrogation was not taped?
3) crucial CCTV tapes which would have settled the question of Knox and Sollecito going out are missing?
4) that the stain on the pillow was tested only for prints and shoe patterns, a decision made by Stefanoni, and defended by Massei? (For the record, the Massei report defends the non-testing of the presume semen stain because, as Massei said, one cannot 'date-stamp' a semen stain, from a pillow located beneath the victim's hips. But Massei in the same report used Knox's 'biological material' against her in the very cottage where she reside in the assumption that it COULD be date stamped to the night of the murder. If Machiavelli denies this, then this proves he has not read the Massei report.
5) that Stefanoni's procedures in her lab led straight to the rusting out of the bra-clasp rendering it useless as evidence?​

I believe we're in for a long, long posting from Machiavelli where he will justify all these things.

 

[Grinder]

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.

This piece of evidence was always the problematic for innocence for me, the DNA in Filomena's. The videos of people walking around the scene after discovery and the narrative of what people did that morning before discovery have reduced my concern. Given that at a minimum Filomena walked around inside the cottage and around her room certainly could transfer DNA into her room.

The lack of the testing of the "sperm" (handy way to refer to it as we all know what we mean by it) makes one wonder what else was neglected to be tested. Was there blood on the window that wasn't tested? Did they test all the glass remaining near or on the sill? How many places did they find Filomena's DNA or Laura's?

The canard that RAf's DNA was only on the cigarette continues until this day. That is the only DNA that ICSI reported to have found but they admitted doing very little work in Amanda's room. They admit leaving Meredith's bloody sweater for 47 days. What other things did they forget or ignore?

The letter to her lawyer is another case where she describes being slapped by the police. She delivered two or three notes within two days making it clear that the accusations against Patrick were dubious at best.

We deal with your repeating of these "serious points" yet you have never adequately explained why the police chief said Amanda told what was correct. "She was questioned until she buckled and told us what we knew to be correct." I honestly think if the chief said that the police figured out that Patrick had been involved and yelled and screamed at Amanda until she would sign a statement written in Italian that they admit she couldn't understand, the PGP would still say Amanda, the evil one, blamed a poor black man on her own of her free will.

 

[Grinder]

Mach,

Please provide the court documents as you refer to them. If they are made available in Italian, perhaps we can some here to at least read them and verify for content.

If you provide the translations please also make them available so the above mentioned people here can check for accuracy.

Thank you in advance.

 

[yimyammer]

You should read the trial papers and know a bit of law instead of followint US media coverage.

What do you mean by trial papers? I assume what you are referring to is only available in Italian?

 

[Dan O.]

I'm not sure how you can't understand how a mixture of the victim's blood co mingled with the defendants DNA in a random spot on the floor is significant. Lets just look at the two spots in Filomena's room,belonging to neither girl, for simplicity . You and others like to point out Amanda's contribution cannot be determined definitely to be blood, So even if it was just Amanda's DNA mixing with Meredith's blood in a small spot in Filomena's room Massei said vigorous hand washing could have released skin DNA and that mixed with the victim's blood.

Briars, are you for real? Are people not allowed to wash their hands in their own homes? There is no evidence that compels the spots in Filomena's room to be associated with Meredith's murder. You and Massei are only arriving at that conclusion by starting with a presumption of guilt and assuming that every detail is evidence of that guilt.

What is it about some random spot in a home where someone lives containing their DNA that makes you say it is evidence of the crime? Is every such spot evidence of a crime? They found Amanda and Raffaele's DNA in the same spots in Raffaele's place. Which one of them murdered the other?

Seeing how Briars has exhausted the backing material for this talking point, he will either repeat the same material over again as a rebuttal or he will jump to another talking point.