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

[Dan O.]

I find it believable that Nara Capezzali did hear something that night. From her own testimony, she thought the time was between 11:00 and 12:30 that night. She heard a long protracted screech that at first she thought was a car crash.

What we know from other testimony is that at 11 pm there were at least 5 witnesses in front of the cottage that night. All of them say that the cottage was dark and quiet. But what about themselves? We're they ever asked if they were being quiet?

While 4 of those witnesses had no reason to make a sound other than quiet talking, the fifth was there to do a job. His job was to hook up the disabled car and haul it away. Tow truck operations can make a lot of noise. if Nara is going to be heard again, I think the court should also hear from this tow truck operator. The best time to hear from him would be durring Nara's testimony as he hooks up Mignini's car and hauls it away.

 

[Antony]

For the same reason you would if your daughter had been murdered in Italy and the case against her killers had still not been finalised.

That doesn't answer the question. From where I'm sitting, Maresca has simply acted as an additional member of the prosecution team and has not done anything recognisable in the interests of the Kercher family - unless we are to understand that a guilty verdict is in their interests, which raises serious questions about judicial boundaries. In any case, why should the victim's family contribute towards the state's cost in bringing a prosecution?

If I was in the Kerchers' position, I would expect someone acting for me to be pressing for police accountability for the failures in the investigation, and for the return of my loved one's belongings and effects. From what I understand, the Perugia police simply disposed of Meredith's belongings, including some gifts which she had bought specially for her family. What has Maresca done about getting answers about any of this disregard of their rights?

 

[cuki777]

cuki pbs #52

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=141747#p141747

Supreme Court of Cassation sentencing report in English

quite well written, start looking beyond ECHR

 

[Chris_Halkides]

utter nonsense

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=141747#p141747

Supreme Court of Cassation sentencing report in English

quite well written, start looking beyond ECHR

With respect to section 12 on genetics, I would find it disconcerting if it were written by third year law students. That it was written by a nation's supreme court is very, very distressing. It is filled with false statements and poor reasoning, and it can only have a pernicious effect on the future of DNA forensics in Italy.

 

[Diocletus]

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=141747#p141747

Supreme Court of Cassation sentencing report in English

quite well written, start looking beyond ECHR

I've read, I guess, in excess of 10,000 court opinions. This is definitely one of the silliest. Should be written in crayon.

 

[Bill Williams]

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=141747#p141747

Supreme Court of Cassation sentencing report in English

quite well written, start looking beyond ECHR

I have read maybe perhaps 20 to 25 court opinions. I'm not by any stretch an expert. Don't want to portray myself that I'm something I'm clearly not.

But I would neither want to reside nor do business in a country which could produce this from the top court of the land.

 

[codyjuneau]

Hm. The reason why I would have such a lawyer would be to make sure that I have the best understanding of all relevant facts, and I think I would start by requesting to see suppressed egram numbers 600 to 604, 617, 622 (control), 626, 628, 631 (control), 685-86, 688-89, 693-94, 758-60, and 762-69. And that's just for the first three weeks of testing.

The reason that I would want to see this is because I know that people who hide evidence generally have a reason for doing so.

.
Yes, and the prosecution has demonstrated exactly that, repeatedly. I think it is extremely important that you have given the defense exact details of the data they should be asking for. I am also positive the prosecution will do everything in their power to continue to withhold this evidence, possibly even destroying or losing more data? That seems to be their preferred action in these circumstances. Hey, they can't defend themselves if the interrogation recordings are missing/cctv camera recordings are missing/data from computers destroyed/bugged telephone call recordings missing/bloody towels rotted/bra clasp rusted/dna notes withheld/dna test data withheld/semen stain not tested, and more. What a brilliant prosecution technique. I wonder why nobody else has ever thought of it? Oh wait, every third world country in the world already has!

And imagine if the bomb threat phone call was not a boy's prank? For the simplest explanation, imagine if an unidentifiable caller made the call, and the police lazily explained it as a boy's prank, then later conveniently continued with that explanation? We do not know the exact time of the call, even Massei refers to it as around 10 pm the night of the murder, whereas every other phone call has an exact time assigned to it. I am quite sure we do not know whether it originated from a land line or a cell phone, and if from a cell phone, which tower it connected through. For that matter I don't think we even know which area of Italy or the world the phone call originated from. Lana reported it as from an Italian speaking caller with a foreign accent. Foreign as in North African? Does it make sense to accept the police explanation without proof? Well as the saying goes, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice or more shame on me (in Massei's case, shame, shame, shame, shame, ...).

Where's the beef official phone call record?
.

 

[acbytesla]

For the same reason you would if your daughter had been murdered in Italy and the case against her killers had still not been finalised.

But I wouldn't have. In fact there is NO REASON AT ALL to have an attorney UNLESS you are seeking money. PERIOD

 

[Diocletus]

quite well written, start looking beyond ECHR

Are you saying that this opinion is so well written that it has anticipated and resolved any issue that could be raised in the ECHR? Wow. You must think it's really, really, really good.

To me, rather than resolving any such issues, this court has just created more issues. E.g., mandating that a person's trial has to be resolved in accordance with some other person's abbreviated, sham trial, to which the first person wasn't even a party. Nonsense.

 

[Bill Williams]

Are you saying that this opinion is so well written that it has anticipated and resolved any issue that could be raised in the ECHR? Wow. You must think it's really, really, really good.

To me, rather than resolving any such issues, this court has just created more issues. E.g., mandating that a person's trial has to be resolved in accordance with some other person's abbreviated, sham trial, to which the first person wasn't even a party. Nonsense.

First ask cuki777 if he wants to be found guilty at a trial he was not represented at.

 

[Diocletus]

First ask cuki777 if he wants to be found guilty at a trial he was not represented at.

No, he wouldn't want that. That would be a trial in abstentia.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, he wouldn't want that. That would be a trial in abstentia.

You can still be represented at a trial in absentia.... the ISC moves it beyond that... a trial where your lawyer wasn't not allowed, had no standing.

 

[Diocletus]

You can still be represented at a trial in absentia.... the ISC moves it beyond that... a trial where your lawyer wasn't not allowed, had no standing.

I think they were there. It's just that there was no notice and opportunity to be heard on the critical issues, because those issues were never even contested. It's supposed to be a kind of trick, I think. Difficult to believe that the people who thought of it actually went to any kind of law school, though.

 

[RWVBWL]

Toto...

I have no problem mocking someone who thinks he's the messiah and at the same time condemns two innocent kids like Amanda and Raffaele. If Ergon can't stand the heat, get out of the fire.

As for negative comments about Toto, My attitude toward him is that he is an unfortunate stooge for the Perugian authorities. He's a homeless guy who probably is a bit of a loon. I feel sorry for Toto, but that doesn't mean I think he's credible or reliable.
There is nothing wrong with mocking the fact that Toto is being used as a witness. I mock the fact that he can't tell the difference between October 31 and November 1. I mock the fact that he's been a prosecution witness in 3 murder trials. I mock the fact that he only came forward after a year.

Hiya ACbyTesla,
A coupla things about Curatolo:



1 is that Toto was discovered in early April of 2008, not a year later.

Like this photo from Frank Sfarzo apparently shows,
Antonio liked reading the local newspaper,

ya know, keeping up on current events, ya might say.


Toto was reading a newspaper under the streetlamps the night Miss Kercher was murdered, right?

Don't they date newspapers anymore?
How come he couldn't remember the correct date?
How come he never mentions that he too heard a loud piercing scream the night Miss Kercher was knifed to her death?

Heck, an old lady heard it from inside of her apartment,
with all of her doors and windows closed.

If the break-in of Filomena's window was staged and happened after after the murder,
then ALL windows and doors at Merediths flat were also closed when she was knifed to death, right?

Yet Nara,
an old lady with probably not as good of hearing as when she was 40 years younger,
hears a loud scream that Toto, mere meters away also, BUT out in the open, never heard?
Right.

This brutal murder was the talk of the town.
A current event, Antonio musta read about it in the newspapers,
right?

If Antonio saw anything the night before,
how come Toto did not tell the cops what he saw last night when he saw them investigating Meredith's murder on the afternoon of the 2nd of Nov and was apparently questioned by police afterwards?

Why do the pro-guilt folks believe what Toto says months later,
but not what he says the very next day?

 

[Grinder]

Why do the pro-guilt folks believe what Toto says months later,
but not what he says the very next day?

Why don't advocate that all the "witnesses" be dropped? It is obvious that none of the witnesses are really credible and none of them came forward in a timely fashion.

Nara was discovered by the media and her neighbor then also came forward to say "yeah I heard some running feet sometime as well"

Nara also said that she heard about the murder before it was discovered but what the hey. She had the day wrong no problem even though she had months to get it right but Raf being confused during a strenuous interrogation is proof positive he did it.

 

[acbytesla]

Delete

 

[Bill Williams]

For the same reason you would if your daughter had been murdered in Italy and the case against her killers had still not been finalised.

Hi Stilicho!

For what it's worth, I agree with you. If I was in the Kercher's place I'd be hiring a lawyer for the sole reason to have them explain the foreign legal system in question.

I'm not sure how I'd react if they said the system allowed them to have at the accuseds as well. 20/20 hindsight in this case would make me want also to have at the prosecution!

But as far as the general principle is concerned, I'd do exactly as the Kerchers did.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Vogt on the Cassation report

Andrea Vogt wrote, "On the forensic front, the Supreme Court states its belief that the footprints attributed to Knox, which contained both Knox and Kercher’s DNA, were made in blood. The court also found there was no evidence that contamination occurred."

Nonsense; there are no women's footprints with mixed DNA. The spots in Filomena's room are amorphous. The woman's footprint in Amanda's room had only her DNA. The luminol-positive footprints in the hallway did not have any DNA. There was a shoe print that had mixed DNA, but the shoe that made it was uncertain, based on the Rinaldi report. And don't get me started on the lack of substrate controls or that luminol indicates the possibility of blood, as opposed to being a confirmatory test for blood. Apart from the DNA, there are some real problems with attributing the footprints to Amanda. The footprint in her room has what appears to be a second toe that does not match her reference print. The luminol was overapplied, leading to dilation of the image, and no reference prints from any woman besides Amanda were taken. Without detail such as one might obtain in a handprint, it is unclear to me how one could attribute the luminol prints to any one person. If anything, the footprint in Amanda's room and the shoe print in the hallway weaken the case that the prints were made in blood, as I have said many times previously.

As for the issue of contamination, when the existence of negative controls can merely be inferred from testimony, as opposed to produced and studied by the defense or independent experts, then proving contamination is very difficult, almost impossible. MOO.

 

[Bill Williams]

Andrea Vogt wrote, "On the forensic front, the Supreme Court states its belief that the footprints attributed to Knox, which contained both Knox and Kercher’s DNA, were made in blood. The court also found there was no evidence that contamination occurred."

Nonsense; there are no women's footprints with mixed DNA. The spots in Filomena's room are amorphous. The woman's footprint in Amanda's room had only her DNA. The luminol-positive footprints in the hallway did not have any DNA. There was a shoe print that had mixed DNA, but the shoe that made it was uncertain, based on the Rinaldi report.

Beyond this, there are some real problems with attributing the footprints to Amanda. The one in her room has what appears to be a second toe that does not match her reference. The luminol was overapplied, leading to dilation of the image, and no reference prints from any woman besides Amanda were taken. Without detail such as one might obtain in a handprint, it is unclear to me how one could attribute the luminol prints to any one person.

As for the issue of contamination, when the existence of negative controls can merely be inferred from testimony, as opposed to produced and studied by the defense or independent experts, then proving contamination is very difficult, almost impossible. MOO.

Andrea as not read John Follain's book. I do not have the transcript, but John Follain relates testimony by Patrizia Stefanoni who was led through the Dec 2007 Scientific Police video of the second search - the one that found the bra-clasp three feet from where it had been 47 days previous.

Bongiorno leads Stefanoni through the film. Stefanoni is wearing an obviously dirty glove - she has the bra-clasp between it's fingers and it's a closeup. At one point the hooks disappear behind her hand and it looks like Stefanoni touches the hooks with her dirty fingers, but it's not conclusive in the film.

So Bongiorno asks Stefanoni about it. Stefanoni can neither confirm nor deny what is suggested on the film. That she touched the hooks. She can neither confirm nor deny, but said that she'd just put on a new pair of gloves. (The film suggests that if that is true, then she put on a dirty pair.)

So Andrea Bogt may be reporting what the ISC believes about the case... except wait for it, the ISC motivations report uses the same language as the Massei report: "In the house on via della Pergola, and particularly in the bathroom used by the victim and by Knox, mixed biological traces were found, attributable to both young women (the accused and the victim):"

Can Vogt not read Italian?

The ISC puts it differently, without claiming "mixed blood". It says that Hellmann should have considered the presence of Amanda's "biological material" in so many of Meredith's blood traces. That's it for being "forensically interesting".

This would be compelling it it weren't the place where both women lived.... was their small "wing" of the cottage forensically sterile at 8 pm, Nov 1, 2007, waiting for the evidence of the crime to be deposited into it? Why then not test the presumed semen stain under the victim's hips? Massei ruled that the DNA in that could not be timestamped so was useless in solving the murder....

Besides - with NO presence of Knox in the murder room.... just how did Knox get blood on her to be washed off? Why is there NO presence of her there in that locked room?

The ISC report still does not solve that issue. How does it factor that in the "global analysis of the evidence" of the crime?

 

[Bill Williams]

The ISC motivations report cites two pieces of evidence to demonstrate that Amanda Knox had prior knowledge of what was behind the locked door of Meredith's room. The report goes to great pains to show why these two piece are independent of each other.

The first concerns the English girls' testimony to Massei's court, where the girls say that Knox told them what turned out to be an accurate description of the crime scene. Knox herself denies this. All agree that Knox was not in a position to see inside the room once the door was opened.

Also, The ISC says that Knox bragged to them that she was the first one to find Meredith.

I'm not sure of what to make of the English girls testimony, when even Judge Massei disbelieved them on other aspects - like that Meredith and Amanda's relationship was deteriorating.

But it is curious that the ISC would choose to highlight the timing of the conversations with her mother, citing this as an independent corroboration of what the ISC says the English girls claim.

Please note, the timing of this call is at 12:47 PM, which makes one wonder why the ISC sees it as so determinative that Amanda is showing "anxiety". Most certainly Amanda is full value for being "anxious" as to Meredith's (then) unknown whereabouts.

For me this is precisely the double-bind the PLE and guilters continue to put her in; both anxiety and calmness are seen as suspicious.

In reality, the case records show that the first person to show anxiety on the morning of 2 November 2007 was certainly Knox, who called her mother, catching her in the middle of the night, and that Sollecito called his sister three minutes later and then called 112 ten minutes later. This situation [73], undeniable and objective, was inexplicably not linked to the evidence considered above indicating that the defendant had knowledge of facts, which for the judges in the first instance trial constituted a solid inferential basis to demonstrate that, with this call, the young woman revealed to her mother her anxiety about a fact which, if unaware of the event, she could not have known.

I hope this is fully investigated by the Florence court, including a return of the English girls to testify, esp. if the ISC sees this as determinative.