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

[Dan O.]

You seem to have that completely backwards - it's the PIP's that do that all the time, if they can't explain something, then it because of a lie, a dishonest person, an complete incompetent person, there is always a reason and they are always asking for evidence but just keep debunking what evidence there is, yet they have NO, and I repeat, NO evidence that says otherwise. Forget all the evidence that says they were out the night of the murder and give me just one small piece that even hints that they were not.

Sorry Sherlock. It's a concept called "Burden of Proof". Can you prove where you were every minute of every day and night? You should watch Hasan's TED Talk.


I see you are still unable to confront the shoe print evidence.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Don't you think it is fair to assume that a guy like Mignini wouldn't have turned to a junkie with a drug charge hanging over his head long after the crime if he could find any evidence they were out that night? I think that is all the proof you need, assuming you really just want "one small piece that even hints that they were not [out]." He had access to every security tape in Perugia. They weren't out, or he would have found them.

I do find it strange that he can not be believed because he's a junkie but I'm suppose to believe Amanda who loses her memory from just smoking a joint, at least the junkie has a memory, don't remember him claiming on the stand that he can't remember over and over again.

 

[Bill Williams]

I do find it strange that he can not be believed because he's a junkie but I'm suppose to believe Amanda who loses her memory from just smoking a joint, at least the junkie has a memory, don't remember him claiming on the stand that he can't remember over and over again.

Sherlock - I'm afraid you will think me impolite, just after saying I was polite....

Knox NEVER said she lost her memory. She has always known she was at Raffaele's What is at issue is more garden-variety; while at her boyfriends and indulging in marijuana, neither she nor Raffaele can provide a minute by minute accounting for what they did when they stayed at his apartment.

Did the pipe-drain break before or after dinner? That's what is referred to when guilters (or cops) press them for little inconsistencies.

To my knowledge, neither she nor Raffaele have ever claimed amnesia. What they have said consistently is that they are each others' alibi. (With the except of interrgation when they were pressured to remember details of an unremarkable night)... Raffaele couldn't remember if they'd been alone together on Oct 31 or Nov 1, and when he asked for a calendar to straighten it out, the cops refused him a calendar and one cop threatened to beat him.

I'm sorry, but at some point these myths have to stop. They have never claimed amnesia. They have had exceptionally minor inconsistencies of when pipes broke in relation to when the dishes were done and dinner was served. All stuff that has nothing to do with the horrid events at the cottage.

Sorry if I'm rude.

 

[anglolawyer]

It would be reasonable for the SC to state that contamination must be possible. They could demand that some reasonable chance of contamination needs to be identified but it is ridiculous to demand that the specific contamination must be identified.

As I said earlier, the contamination combined with the sex game aspects make me wonder if the "motivations" came from Cipollo the magazine.

This will be very hard on the PGP and the Kerchers as the snip from the article on her consensual sex shows.

Surely what must be proved is regular and satisfactory procedure. If a fingerprint expert employed the method of staring hard at a fingerprint, memorising it, scrubbing it clean and then going back to the office and finding one like it we might raise an eyebrow.

 

[GWCarver]

I do find it strange that he can not be believed because he's a junkie but I'm suppose to believe Amanda who loses her memory from just smoking a joint, at least the junkie has a memory, don't remember him claiming on the stand that he can't remember over and over again.

You don't really believe a junkie would notice and remember two people standing there on a particular night so long after the crime, when he didn't remember in the period immediately after the crime, do you? A homeless junkie? Was he keeping a journal? Not hardly. Add in the fact there is no reasonable explanation for Amanda and Raffaele to have been out there in the cold for two hours after Meredith was already murdered by Guede (based on TOD by digestion) and it is clear Toto was "encouraged" to testify he had seen them, just as he had been by Mignini in two previous trials.

It has become abundantly clear this week that the entire Italian system of justice is rotten from the ISC at the top to the cops and lab techs at the bottom.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I do like how you start off by saying no evidence, then go on to list evidence, and even then skip over even more evidence, the knife, the bra clasp, the store owner the mixed DNA and so on....... Tell me though, what evidence is there they stayed home that night after 9:15 and before 5:30am the next morning?

Note that I said physical evidence. Witness testimony is verbal evidence. The store owner is more verbal evidence, and that testimony doesn't put AK or RS at the cottage on the night of the murder anyway.

The knife is not physical evidence that they were there. It is the wrong shape for the wounds, with the expectation of the slash, which any straight edged knife could make, and the blood pattern on the bed shows the shape of a different knife. Even if one concedes that MK's DNA was on the knife, that still doesn't mean that it proves that either the knife, or AK and RS were at the scene of the murder that night as, is often pointed out, DNA is not time stamped. There are other ways for the DNA to have arrived there. There is no blood on the knife, it wasn't cleaned as claimed, and other than speculation based on a rather dodgy test, there is nothing actually connecting the knife with the Murder.

The DNA on the bra is also not physical evidence of their presence at the time of the murder (or shortly after.) Once more even if it is accepted that the DNA is actually RS's (which is not something that is beyond reasonable doubt) there are a number of ways it could have gotten there. MK could very easily have wiped her hands on the same towel that RS had used previously before putting on her bra, thus transferring the DNA from the towel to her bra. Others have mentioned that he might have kissed her as Italians do on greeting and parting, leaving a trace on her cheek. Later she transferred that to the bra hooks after touching her cheeks. And that is just two ways for innocent transfer.

DNA presence does not mean actual presence at the time of the killing unless you can show that it was laid down there at the time of the killing, and not before, or after.

Similarly the mixed DNA results. Both MK and AK lived in the house and used the same bathroom. It would have been more suspicious to have NOT found their DNA mixed together in the communal parts of the house. It is impossible to say when MK's DNA was laid down, nor when AK's was. The prosecution made invalid conclusions from the presence, that it was laid down at the same time and that was on the night of the murder. This conclusion is pure speculation and totally invalid. All the mixed DNA does is provide evidence that both AK and MK were in the house at some point in time and passed through the same areas, at some point in time. We already knew that. What is doesn't provide evidence for is that AK and RS were there on the night of the murder.

 

[anglolawyer]

If this were not the case though, would not all DNA findings be claimed contamination, or at least the vast majority. I heard somewhere in this case a long time ago, that unless contamination were proved, it doesn't exist.

Answer=no. The defence need only put the state to proof of the reliability of any DNA evidence. It doesn't (or shouldn't) have to claim anything.

 

[PhantomWolf]

We would need to know who's DNA other than RS's is on the bra before we could say if it were contamination or not and that is not likely to happen.

Not true, the fact that it is there is evidence that there is contamination, unless you subscribe to the theory that MK readily let other people touch the hooks on her bra.

There are only two ways that that DNA got there. The person that it belonged to touched the hooks directly, or it got their indirectly via some form of contamination. Now that contamination could have been a transfer by MK herself, but again, if she could transfer other people's DNA to the hooks, why not RS's as well?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sorry guys, but it's now 12:30 AM here and I really have to get to bed.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I do find it strange that he can not be believed because he's a junkie but I'm suppose to believe Amanda who loses her memory from just smoking a joint, at least the junkie has a memory, don't remember him claiming on the stand that he can't remember over and over again.

He loses credibility not because he's a junkie, but because he got the details of which night it was wrong, because he admits being high, because he made claims that don't stack up (that AK was arguing with RS in Italian), and that he claims to recognise a pair he had never seen previously from a distance at night a full year later, but claims to have seen nothing when questioned shortly after the murder itself.

How anyone can consider his reliable is beyond me.

 

[Dan O.]

Sherlock Holmes on shoe prints

Continuation_Part_3:
[Post 2609]
Author : Sherlock Holmes
Date : 19th August 2011 10:20 AM

The evidence is in Rudy's left blood stained shoe print that shows he could not have locked the door when he left - that leaves only Amanda and Raff who were there.

[Post 2926]
Author : Sherlock Holmes
Date : 22nd August 2011 01:57 PM

First of all, your diagrams wrong, where did you get it from, Rudy left no prints in the bathroom, secondly, all the shoe prints are left foot of Rudy's, the prints clearly show he was running out of Meredith's room and stopped in the living room probably to put his coat back on that Amanda had hung up for him. Rudy clearly did not stop to lock Meredith's door no matter how you want to spin it but at the same time I know you people can not accept this, because it means Amanda is GUILTY to some degree, Good day sir.

Continuation_Part_5[Post 522]
Author : Sherlock Holmes
Date : 26th April 2013 10:54 AM

I have seen nothing that shows me otherwise, Bruce Fisher even did a self video of him locking a door the way Rudy would have had to and Mary H even told me that was how she locks her door all the time, I do like Mary, but I'm not buying it. As the great captain Jack Sparrow once said, it's not probable, but not impossible. Rudy left a left shoe print.by Meredith's door for everyone to see, whoever believe in Amanda's innocence has to also believe Rudy would lock Meredith's door with his left foot pointed away from the door. No matter how unlikely this would be, you pretty much have to agree that's how he did it, otherwise, she would be guilty to some degree.

[Post 2090]
Author : Sherlock Holmes
Date : 15th May 2013 09:13 AM

Does not matter how faint they became, we can follow them to the front door and they don't return, even after they were checked with luminal. This may be the best example yet for the shoe prints though, you were thinking correctly, unlike any other explanation I've read so far. Rudi's shoes were left at the front door, when someone let him in, Amanda or Meredith herself. Then after the murder, he goes to leave but front door is locked, puts on shoes, goes back to bedroom, steps in blood with left shoe, gets key and leaves, BUT, and this is a big BUT, he still does not lock Meredith's door, but it explains everything else.

[Post 2130]
Author : Sherlock Holmes
Date : 16th May 2013 08:00 AM

Exactly, and since the left blood shoe prints leads to the front door, and doesn't return, even when examined with Lumina, what does that tell you?

[Post 2346]
Author : Sherlock Holmes
Date : 17th May 2013 05:10 PM

I really don't think I should respond here, you have something really messed up. Who cares about the footprint on the mat, you seem to think it was made after the shoe prints that lead to the front door, impossible, the shoe prints do not return, even when examined under Luminal, the shoe prints are the last you see of Rudi before he leaves. The footprint on the mat has nothing to do with who locked that door, actually, anybody you like is more likely to have locked that door, than Rudi.

[Post 4071]
Author : Sherlock Holmes
Date : 27th May 2013 12:08 PM

Example, look at the way that Rudi footprint went down here, P's had him leaving the building then coming back, when that looked unlikely, they started to see shoe prints in the Lumina going back to Meredith's room, you can see whatever you like, but the most likely thing that happen, and what the evidence shows, Rudi did not lock that door.

[Post 5101]
Author : Sherlock Holmes
Date : 3rd June 2013 12:10 PM

No one ever said Rudy walked straight out the front door, that's just some things some PIP's like to say to think they are somehow discrediting someone, the shoe print evidence clearly shows he walked around at the front door, maybe collecting his coat, maybe peeking out the front door waiting for the coast to be clear, who knows, however, it also shows that he did not return, even when tested with Lumina.

[Post 5129]
Author : Sherlock Holmes
Date : 3rd June 2013 06:21 PM

Having said this does not make it so, there are no returning shoe prints, with or without luminal, Rudy did not return once he left after leaving the main prints, you can believe he walked around outside and wore any traces off all you like, it doesn't make that so either. Now, having said this I do know that no PIP can ever agree with this because it means someone else locked that door and even a PIP knows who that would have to be, so I'm not expecting any sort of agreement here, sure he went for a walk outside until all traces of blood wore of his shoes.

[Post 5825]
Author : Sherlock Holmes
Date : 20th June 2013 09:23 AM

The shoe prints lead out Meredith's door and do not return even under Lumina examination, Rudi did not lock that door when he left and he didn't return to lock it later, those were his final prints out the door, show me where he returned, you can't. Now, because this was not brought up at trial, I'm guessing there is probably a very good reason why, I would like to know, but no one seem to know the answer.

[Post 5900]
Author : Sherlock Holmes
Date : 20th June 2013 11:53 PM

There is no shoe print evidence, You miss the whole problem behind the shoe prints and you can not answer my questions about them. The shoe prints not returning is not the problem, how and if Rudi went back into the room is not the question, the question is why was it not bright up at trial, it wasn't because there is some known reason that both the defense and the prosecution know about that makes the point moot, it could be something as simple as the door locks when it open, though neither of us think this lock can do that but regardless, that would be a good answer if true and the reason it was not brought. Up. Quote possibly only the defense or prosecution can answer this question because I hardly doubt it was overlooked. Your disappearing print, mean absolutely nothing, goodness, where do you think they went?

Sherlock Holmes is stuck in a rut and can't get out. He is repeating the same tripe over and over and over. To help him get back to engaging in an actual debate I offered him a simple task:
[Post 5816]
Author : Dan O.
Date : 20th June 2013 08:41 AM

Go for it Sherlock, show us the facts. There are a set of well marked footprints each with a separate label. You tell us the order of those steps. Tell us where the next step would be. Tell us why there is no marker for that next step.

And clarified the task

[Post 5826]
Author : Dan O.
Date : 20th June 2013 09:40 AM

I gave you a specific task because you are either ignorant of the evidence or are deliberately trying to misrepresent it. The task for you is to state the sequence of the shoe prints by the letters. By completing this task you will show that you know (or have learned) the facts.

All he has to do is look at the evidence as I have and post the answer. But he cannot do it. He squirms, He wiggles, He tries to change the subject. What is wrong with posting what the evidence shows?

 

[MattJones]

Wireless Router

The house had to have a wireless router somewhere, it seems to me. And from what I read, the firewall on the router could have recorded internet traffic.

Was the router ever recovered?

Could it be mined to show time of traffic?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Bill Williams. Sherlock and I discussed the amnesia issue within the last month, and he said that he was referring only to the night of the interrogation.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill Williams. Sherlock and I discussed the amnesia issue within the last month, and he said that he was referring only to the night of the interrogation.

Fair enough

Apologies to SH. I'd quibble with the word in the context of what happens to young victims of wrongful interrogations, it almost the opposite of strict amnesia. The words "confusedly remembered" is strangely more accurate, but hey, why not amnesia.

 

[bri1]

If this were not the case though, would not all DNA findings be claimed contamination, or at least the vast majority. I heard somewhere in this case a long time ago, that unless contamination were proved, it doesn't exist.

The guidelines and protocols for forensics collection, handling and testing are agreed to prevent (or minimise the possibility of) contamination. If the police can show that they followed these guidelines, then absolutely the burden falls on the defense to show that contamination is probable (I still don't think they'd have to prove it totally, as long as they've demonstrated that it's a probable interpretation of the evidence, which if it's a key piece of evidence, could amount to reasonable doubt).
However, if the police can't show these guidelines were followed (no controls, clear errors on crime scene videos), then the burden shifts. At this point, really all the defense should have to do is show that contamination was possible.

 

[JREF2010]

You seem to have that completely backwards - it's the PIP's that do that all the time, if they can't explain something, then it because of a lie, a dishonest person, an complete incompetent person, there is always a reason and they are always asking for evidence but just keep debunking what evidence there is,

yet they have NO, and I repeat, NO evidence that says otherwise. Forget all the evidence that says they were out the night of the murder and give me just one small piece that even hints that they were not.

wow... so you ignore all the evidence presented from the defense?

Have you read the C&V report....all traces show NO BLOOD from the Knife, the Bra clasp has a mountain of issues and cannot be used, and should never have been allowed in the trail. Thats just for the two Main pieces of Evidence.

The knife was studied by all parties present , ordered by Hellman. It was found to not have been cleaned and no blood present.

but I get the impression, you dont accept any of this info. most PG's dont.

 

[Briars]

He was a heroin user who had a routine that included reading the paper in Piazza Grimana. The Piazza is no Piazza San Marco. Its empty, used to play basketball but not a pleasant place to hang out. A couple any couple seen looking at traffic and the cottage gate by the rail would stand out. Anyone there after 9 pm would stand out in a crowd of 5 or 6 at the most. Most important is that Curatolo remembered the men in white the next day. Accustomed noise like buses present when you hear car traffic where you sit is far less important to get wrong. I have no doubt that he remembered seeing a couple looking over the rail and was a little curious as to what held their attention. He read his paper and happened to note them there at different times, why wouldn't he , there wouldn't be much else to look at?

 

[GWCarver]

He was a heroin user who had a routine that included reading the paper in Piazza Grimana. The Piazza is no Piazza San Marco. Its empty, used to play basketball but not a pleasant place to hang out. A couple any couple seen looking at traffic and the cottage gate by the rail would stand out. Anyone there after 9 pm would stand out in a crowd of 5 or 6 at the most. Most important is that Curatolo remembered the men in white the next day. Accustomed noise like buses present when you hear car traffic where you sit is far less important to get wrong. I have no doubt that he remembered seeing a couple looking over the rail and was a little curious as to what held their attention. He read his paper and happened to note them there at different times, why wouldn't he , there wouddn't be much else to look at?

No doubt? A year later? Toto the junkie has testimony for the third time in a Mignini murder trial?

At what point does one conclude Toto is not an observant citizen who just happens to be in the right place at the right time, but is Mignini's go to guy when he needs to manufacture a witness? How many more murder trials would Toto have needed to have served as a witness before you would suspect all was not on the up and up? Is three not enough to paint the picture? Would four do it? Five?

 

[Dan O.]

He was a heroin user who had a routine that included reading the paper in Piazza Grimana. The Piazza is no Piazza San Marco. Its empty, used to play basketball but not a pleasant place to hang out. A couple any couple seen looking at traffic and the cottage gate by the rail would stand out. Anyone there after 9 pm would stand out in a crowd of 5 or 6 at the most. Most important is that Curatolo remembered the men in white the next day. Accustomed noise like buses present when you hear car traffic where you sit is far less important to get wrong. I have no doubt that he remembered seeing a couple looking over the rail and was a little curious as to what held their attention. He read his paper and happened to note them there at different times, why wouldn't he , there wouldn't be much else to look at?

Please explain your theory in light of the actual facts. Specifically the fact that Curatolo was questioned in the days immediately following Meredith's murder and nothing stood out in his mind at that time.

There is also the little issue that you cannot actually see the cottage from anywhere around the basketball court or Curatolo's bench. What you can see from Curatolo's bench are the pictures in the paper showing the white suits and the defendants. If Curatolo's heroin smacked mind was going to manufacture a false memory he would have had plenty of images to built it from over the previous year of the paper's reporting on the case.

 

[Briars]

Curatolo hung out there everyday years before the murder. His outdoor living room , he probably could identify every tree. Add his testimony to all the rest of points in the SC document with the cottage and why not believe he saw them?