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

[Sherlock Holmes]

Fine and neither can you guys. No DNA means someone wasn't in the room no matter what the activities were alleged to be in each room.

Therefore Amanda wasn't in the killing room and Rudi wasn't in F's room. Amanda innocent of murder. Rudi innocent of breaking and entry, it was Koko or the other guy with them, the third man.

It seems as if you don't actually read posts that question your theories. There is a huge difference between being in F's room in a outfit of a burglar and being in Meredith's room violently killing her. Rudi did leave abundant amounts of DNA as well as hand prints and shoe prints in Meredith's blood.

I specifically asked about the DNA under her fingernails that would show Amanda had been clawed by Meredith. Could you address that specific? Would you?

Remember, my theory Amanda is not in the murder room and Rudi is not in Filomena's, actually he is, but just to look out the window.
The mark on Amada's neck/throat, is not a scratch, you guys claim it as a hickie, I'm guessing you remember what a hickie looks like, a bruise not a scratch, you can quite easily make a bruise and not leave any DNA and Amanda or any girl can easily hide it with makeup.

 

[NancyS]

Remember, my theory Amanda is not in the murder room and Rudi is not in Filomena's, actually he is, but just to look out the window.
The mark on Amada's neck/throat, is not a scratch, you guys claim it as a hickie, I'm guessing you remember what a hickie looks like, a bruise not a scratch, you can quite easily make a bruise and not leave any DNA and Amanda or any girl can easily hide it with makeup.

Was that the theory, which actually makes Amanda and Raffaele innocent witnesses - who for some reason (known only to them and against all reason), have decided to protect Rudy?

 

[anglolawyer]

SC motivation - new David Anderson translation

Just confirming what I surmised yesterday, that Hellman's rejection of the memoriale was contrary to Cassazione 990/2008, this is a screen shot from a translation of the recent SC motivation made by David Anderson and just posted by Bruce Fischer at IA in which Cassazione is enumerating the 16 points of appeal it divined from Galati. Note the word 'not' is missing after the word 'should' on the second line (the passage makes no sense otherwise). Sorry I can't cut and paste but it's one of those annoying PDFs that won't let me do that.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Was that the theory, which actually makes Amanda and Raffaele innocent witnesses - who for some reason (known only to them and against all reason), have decided to protect Rudy?

No

 

[Grinder]

Remember, my theory Amanda is not in the murder room and Rudi is not in Filomena's, actually he is, but just to look out the window.
The mark on Amada's neck/throat, is not a scratch, you guys claim it as a hickie, I'm guessing you remember what a hickie looks like, a bruise not a scratch, you can quite easily make a bruise and not leave any DNA and Amanda or any girl can easily hide it with makeup.

The PGP claim it is a scratch and that's where the blood on the faucet from Amanda came from. So you are suggesting that Meredith poked Amanda with a finger leaving a bruise but not removing any DNA that would have been found on her finger?

Was that the theory, which actually makes Amanda and Raffaele innocent witnesses - who for some reason (known only to them and against all reason), have decided to protect Rudy?

Yes. And in addition neither decided to be the first to come clean and tell how they became involved even if they didn't help murder Meredith.

Somehow this is why they left the blood on the faucet and the bloody foot print on the mat.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The PGP claim it is a scratch and that's where the blood on the faucet from Amanda came from. So you are suggesting that Meredith poked Amanda with a finger leaving a bruise but not removing any DNA that would have been found on her finger?

No I am not, it could just as easily been a hickey, and how would they know where the blood from Amanda came from? I'm sure they are only suggesting that it could have come from there, like it could have come from her ear piercings which she herself thought as well. I also thought PIP's say there was no mixed blood, which is it?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I'll tell them, but most don't listen to me.. First off, no DNA doesn't mean they weren't there I'm sure we can agree because you guys want Rudi in that bathroom and in Filomena's room, therefore, why the big stink always with the no Amanda DNA in the murder room? Just saying, you can't have it both ways.

OK, you're right. The absence of physical evidence does not by itself prove that Amanda was not in the room when Meredith was killed.

So, if the terms of the law are such that she must prove with absolute certainty that she was not present, she cannot do so.

Most of us have been working on the assumption that the state must prove its accusation, and they have not done so in spite of a desperate effort. Their case comes down to rigid and illogical inferences drawn from physical traces outside the murder room, every one of which can easily be explained as unrelated to the crime, or as the result of sloppy procedures.

Meanwhile, a pattern of evidence shows that Guede was not merely present in the room, but that he perpetrated a deadly assault and robbery.

We have his DNA on the sleeve of Meredith's jacket, on her bra, and on her purse.

We have a DNA haplotype matching his genetic profile from a swab of Meredith's vagina.

We have his bloody shoe prints on the floor.

We have his bloody hand print on the pillow found under Meredith's body.

Anyone - Amanda, Kokomani, or Mignini - could have been standing in the corner, watching while Guede carried out the acts that produced this evidence. There's no proof to the contrary. If common sense has any weight at all, there shouldn't have to be.

 

[acbytesla]

OK lets give you (your argument) the benefit of the doubt and take it that you think 16 yrs is too short a sentence for a rape/murder. I probably agree with you – in certain jurisdictions (the US I am told ) it would be much longer.
However this was arrived at, as we all know, as 1/3 off 24 yrs.

Now you can’t rewrite the Italian penal code (whether wearing a wig or a sheet) to retrospectively alter the fast track reduction. So the only option is stiffer sentences for crimes of this nature.

So if you think that RG should have got say 20 yrs then non fast tracked will get 30. etc etc. Note that this stiffer sentencing will apply to Manders & Raffy when/if they are finally signed off on.

So can we expect to see the ‘Friends of Manders & Raffy‘ campaigning for longer terms for sex killers in Italy generally? That’s the rational progression of your argument.
You could utilize that parliamentarian who visited AK in prison to spearhead the campaign.
Perhaps get Frank S involved – would he be keen to push for a hard-line on crimes against women do you think. ? Perhaps not. (Where is he these days ?? – you used to put great store by his utterances).

If this natural progression is not followed & I see no sign of it yet then the suspicion of special treatment for the ‘black boy’ remains.

So best get cracking – you will probably find that the pro victim advocates would readily support you guys in such a noble cause.

Clearly Platonov can't or won't read. Chris was not really arguing that Rudy should be retried, just that he believes that Rudy's sentence was too light.

I am not speaking from a legal perspective, obviously

I agree with Chris that Rudy's sentence seems light for a burglary/rape/murder. Having said that I would have a large problem with any retroactive laws. In the US, the Constitution strictly forbids any "ex post facto" laws.

Platonov seems more interested in playing the race card as if Rudy's problems have anything to do with race.

Patrick Lumumba most certainly has the right to play the race card. Rudy on the other hand does not. Rudy was taken in by a wealthy Italian family, even adopted. Yet he betrayed his new family by not going to school, not going to work and turning to a life of crime.

I personally don't know how Rudy's sentence compares to others who committed similar crimes. Somehow I'm not sure it is much shorter than average..but then again I could be wrong. I do know that if one is trying make sense of sentencing in the US or Italy would be surprised at how capricious it is.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

OK, you're right. The absence of physical evidence does not by itself prove that Amanda was not in the room when Meredith was killed.

So, if the terms of the law are such that she must prove with absolute certainty that she was not present, she cannot do so.

Most of us have been working on the assumption that the state must prove its accusation, and they have not done so in spite of a desperate effort. Their case comes down to rigid and illogical inferences drawn from physical traces outside the murder room, every one of which can easily be explained as unrelated to the crime, or as the result of sloppy procedures.

Meanwhile, a pattern of evidence shows that Guede was not merely present in the room, but that he perpetrated a deadly assault and robbery.

We have his DNA on the sleeve of Meredith's jacket, on her bra, and on her purse.

We have a DNA haplotype matching his genetic profile from a swab of Meredith's vagina.

We have his bloody shoe prints on the floor.

We have his bloody hand print on the pillow found under Meredith's body.

Anyone - Amanda, Kokomani, or Mignini - could have been standing in the corner, watching while Guede carried out the acts that produced this evidence. There's no proof to the contrary. If common sense has any weight at all, there shouldn't have to be.

Charlie, you are probably aware that while I do not believe Amanda or Raff were present when the murder was committed, that I do feel there was some involvement by the two. How much involvement I'm not sure but enough to make their stories not believable, and those that have to decide the pairs fate will decide against them not because they can prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but because there is just too much evidence proving that they did not stay at Rafs all night, they are lying. Now, in Italy, maybe that's all you need to be an accomplish to the crime and equally guilty, I do not know, I once said I was happy with the 4 years already served as a fitting punishment, but I felt they should have stated what really did happen that night, but I can also see the pressure by their parents and defense lawyers as to keep quiet, thinking that if they didn't kill anyone, then they can't be found guilty of said murder. They were wrong and it way to late to change stories now.

 

[acbytesla]

Nonsense – I could claim to be surprised at you halides1 but TBH I’m not.
Stiffer sentencing would not require a rewrite – its at the courts discretion, within limits of course.

Of course it would. Otherwise sentencing would be grossly capricious. While there is such a thing as case law where judges write interpretations of laws that are not clear which becomes the law of the land. Sentencing guidelines should be written by the legislature or parliament.

 

[Grinder]

No I am not, it could just as easily been a hickey, and how would they know where the blood from Amanda came from? I'm sure they are only suggesting that it could have come from there, like it could have come from her ear piercings which she herself thought as well. I also thought PIP's say there was no mixed blood, which is it?

The PGP say that no hickey looks like her mark and they giddily speculate on Meredith scratching her as a last act.

So you disagree that Meredith scratched Amanda, that's progress. You then agree had Meredith would have had AK's DNA under her nail.

Ear piercing is not accepted by the PGP because they desperately want it to come from a wound inflicted by Meredith - the "hickey" or a bloody nose. They also skip over why no mixed blood was found or why Amanda didn't bleed in the killing room.

There is no mixed blood. Amanda's blood was found on the faucet but not mixed. There is not an issue, the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[anglolawyer]

More from the SC motivation

I am just letting this document wash over me and come across a blinding insight from the SC judges. Having explained that it is not for them to interfere in the fact-finding process but that this does not preclude them from assessing the overall reasonableness or 'logicality' of the findings below, they enumerate all the reasons why Hellman failed to look at Curatolo's evidence in the round and include this stunner. It seems it was illogical of Hellman and Zanetti and the popular judges not to attach weight to the fact that Toto was able to make a dock ID

Q. do you see the persons you claim to have seen in the piazza that night here in the court room?
A. yes I do. They are the ones shielding their eyes from the two spotlights someone has helpfully just shined on them.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The PGP say that no hickey looks like her mark and they giddily speculate on Meredith scratching her as a last act.

Are you referring to just one poster (PGP) or all as a whole, because I read PMF and I have not heard of this. I have heard of the earring thing and even a lost earring and even the Amanda light being in the room looking for that earring.

So you disagree that Meredith scratched Amanda, that's progress. You then agree had Meredith would have had AK's DNA under her nail.

No, I do not believe DNA is easily left behind, I believe it is equally possible to leave it as it is to not leave any. She could have scratch her and not left any traces or scratched and left an abundant amount.

Ear piercing is not accepted by the PGP because they desperately want it to come from a wound inflicted by Meredith - the "hickey" or a bloody nose. They also skip over why no mixed blood was found or why Amanda didn't bleed in the killing room.

Like I said, I have heard the earring thing and perhaps the bloody noise as well.

There is no mixed blood. Amanda's blood was found on the faucet but not mixed. There is not an issue, the two are not mutually exclusive.

You know, I don't know if there is mixed blood or not, PIP's say there is not and PGP's say there is, I'm stuck in between but it really makes no difference to me.

 

[acbytesla]

I have to say that a lot of this arguing is driving me crazy.

Sherlock argues that the lack of DNA from Amanda and Raffaele in Meredith's room does not disprove Amanda and Raffaele being in the room during the murder. On this I agree.

However, it is the responsibility of those arguing guilt to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspects were there and involved.

For Rudy, this is very easy. Even without modern DNA science this is easy. There is his palm prints in Meredith's blood in Meredith's bedroom. There are his shoe prints in her bedroom and the hall way. And there is Rudy fleeing the country, Rudy's statements.
We could add in Rudy's recent burglary spree including the probable arson, the pulling of a knife on Tremantono, the arson. Then we add his DNA on Meredith and in Meredith. Really an open and shut case.

What evidence is there on Amanda and Raffaele? Two very confusing statements that do little to actually incriminate them and little else. The Luminol footprints? Because they were not confirmed to be blood, and other testing actually contradicts that they were blood.

Still, even if the Luminol prints were blood, it could easily be argued that this is the result of Amanda's shower the next day and have nothing to do with the murder. We know that Rudy washed blood from himself in that shower and Amanda the next morning took a shower and possibly walked a few steps in the hallway and her bedroom with water/blood? residue on the soles of her feet. It's important to notice that none of these bare Luminol footprints were in Meredith's room anyway. I still contend that it is wrong to conclude that these prints were blood residue when we know that they tested negative for blood with TMB.

There is no evidence of Amanda or Raffaele ever being in that bedroom even though in of itself that wouldn't have necessarily been incriminating. There are no fingerprints or shoe prints of Amanda or Raffaele in that bedroom. (They use to think that some of the shoe prints were Raffaele's but they turned out to be Rudy's) There also is no DNA.

There is no evidence of a sex orgy gone wrong (how stupid is that?) There is no connection of Amanda or Raffaele to Rudy.

There is nothing to prove Amanda or Raffaele's guilt. Certainly nothing that provides evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Bill Williams]

Are you referring to just one poster (PGP) or all as a whole, because I read PMF and I have not heard of this. I have heard of the earring thing and even a lost earring and even the Amanda light being in the room looking for that earring.



No, I do not believe DNA is easily left behind, I believe it is equally possible to leave it as it is to not leave any. She could have scratch her and not left any traces or scratched and left an abundant amount.



Like I said, I have heard the earring thing and perhaps the bloody noise as well.



You know, I don't know if there is mixed blood or not, PIP's say there is not and PGP's say there is, I'm stuck in between but it really makes no difference to me.

It is strange to hear Judge Massei referred to as being in the innocence camp. He's my source for no mixed blood. And that bit about not knowing if DNA or other forensics would be transferred in this csse particularly when an abundant amount of Rudy's DID, pretty much says it all.

 

[Supernaut]

Remember, my theory Amanda is not in the murder room and Rudi is not in Filomena's, actually he is, but just to look out the window.
The mark on Amada's neck/throat, is not a scratch, you guys claim it as a hickie, I'm guessing you remember what a hickie looks like, a bruise not a scratch, you can quite easily make a bruise and not leave any DNA and Amanda or any girl can easily hide it with makeup.

You don't have a "theory".

You have a hypothesis.

You obviously don't know the difference, but a few days of furious googling might get it through your skull.

 

[Bill Williams]

Charlie, you are probably aware that while I do not believe Amanda or Raff were present when the murder was committed, that I do feel there was some involvement by the two. How much involvement I'm not sure but enough to make their stories not believable, and those that have to decide the pairs fate will decide against them not because they can prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but because there is just too much evidence proving that they did not stay at Rafs all night, they are lying. Now, in Italy, maybe that's all you need to be an accomplish to the crime and equally guilty, I do not know, I once said I was happy with the 4 years already served as a fitting punishment, but I felt they should have stated what really did happen that night, but I can also see the pressure by their parents and defense lawyers as to keep quiet, thinking that if they didn't kill anyone, then they can't be found guilty of said murder. They were wrong and it way to late to change stories now.

The stunner is that you say this on the basis of a footprint that belongs to neither of them.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Charlie, you are probably aware that while I do not believe Amanda or Raff were present when the murder was committed, that I do feel there was some involvement by the two. How much involvement I'm not sure but enough to make their stories not believable, and those that have to decide the pairs fate will decide against them not because they can prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but because there is just too much evidence proving that they did not stay at Rafs all night, they are lying. Now, in Italy, maybe that's all you need to be an accomplish to the crime and equally guilty, I do not know, I once said I was happy with the 4 years already served as a fitting punishment, but I felt they should have stated what really did happen that night, but I can also see the pressure by their parents and defense lawyers as to keep quiet, thinking that if they didn't kill anyone, then they can't be found guilty of said murder. They were wrong and it way to late to change stories now.

Many people have pointed this out many times: The evidence of which you speak is all unreliable, contrived on the heels of a rash accusation.

That's why you can't arrive at a clear understanding. There's nothing real to understand, no actual criminal scenario that involves anyone gut Guede. The best the authorities can do is create a fog of suspicion.

I have some advantage in that I have watched this story unfold with many cases in many jurisdictions. The weaker the evidence, the more vehemently the authorities insist they are right. When doubts arise, they dig in their heels and redouble their effort to secure or protect a conviction.

I highly recommend John Douglas's latest book, Law and Disorder. Douglas spent his career putting really dangerous criminals behind bars, and no one would ever say he is soft on crime. But he understands the phenomenon I'm describing. Here's what he wrote about the case of the West Memphis Three, a notorious wrongful conviction in the US:

Everyone on that side [i.e., the prosecution] wants a conviction; I get that. No one wants to fight that hard and lose. As Steve Braga commented to Mark Olshaker, "When Dennis Riordan brought in Werner Spitz and John Douglas and Michael Baden and Vince DiMaio, among others - the world's leading experts - and they say, 'Your coroner got it wrong. These weren't knife wounds. We all agree. Six of us independently agree these aren't knife wounds but animal predation,' then somebody on the prosecution side has to be stand-up enough to say, 'Okay, let's take this seriously' - not "Oh, my God, how are we going to defend against this? Let's keep fighting.' At some point, you've got to recognize a mistake.

But they seldom do recognize a mistake. They keep fighting. They continue to insist they are somehow "right" even though they aren't clear or consistent as to what they are right about. And they always pull a fair slice of the public on board, because many people just can't fathom that responsible public officials would be so persistent, and so unified in their persistence, if they were wrong.

 

[snook1]

Yes, just pointing out facts you and your PIP's can't comprehend seems to offend you, there is no need to be rude, if you have no answer then don't answer, we were warned it would get worse once school was out.

Rude? Who's being rude? I just pointed out that you and Sherlock Holmes have nothing in common, since the latter one was able to draw conclusions from evidence, while you're clearly having problems with that. No worries, though; we need different opinions so we can see how people can make something out of nothing ---- no evidence of their participation=for PGP still means guilty.

 

[Supernaut]

Rude? Who's being rude? I just pointed out that you and Sherlock Holmes have nothing in common, since the latter one was able to draw conclusions from evidence, while you're clearly having problems with that. No worries, though; we need different opinions so we can see how people can make something out of nothing ---- no evidence of their participation=for PGP still means guilty.

If you consider the avatar used, the "Sherlock Holmes" in question isn't Conan Doyles', but rather the Hollywood character (or is that caricature?) "based" on the former.

Hope that clears it up.

[edit >> oops - hyphenated Sir Arthur's name]