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

[Diocletus]

Testimonies do not require "validation" to be reliable. They are presumed reliable, in the absence of arguments of the contrary. Testimonies hae the status of factual elements, while your doubts are merely doubts, they are question marks and not factual.

What is the gobbledegook?

Testimony is testimony. It's up to the jury to accept all or part, or reject any part of testimony that it wants to. It can do so for any reason it wants.

Don't feel bad, though. Your supreme court doesn't understand this, either.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>But overall, Vogt left out a long series of pieces of evidence from her reports; she was in no way "unfavorable" in her balance of information. Actually, the truel evidentiary situation of Knox within the trial was even heavier than what Vogt conveyed.

What stopped her from conveying it? And when are we going to see this much-ballyhooed additional evidence that no other journalist conveyed either? Maybe at the first second third fourth trial? The suspense is killing me.

What a bunch of bologna.

 

[RWVBWL]

The air is crisp and clear, all is quiet except for the occasional sound of the burner disturbing the perfect serenity that surrounds you. You float majestically somewhere between the trees and heaven watching life drift slowly past below. You take it all in, and think just how perfect this day has become and how awesome this experience is and wonder why you didn't do this sooner.

Oh my goodness!
This post has me laughing out loud!


Gosh,
I bet that Amanda, practicing playing that same ol' Beatles song over+over again from the outside balcony during the daytime, +Rudy Guede breaking that outside window on a quiet November holiday night, and all the cars driving by daily+nightly must have really helped set the tone for some perfect serenity in Perugia...

 

[Diocletus]

According the Italian supreme court:

1.2... It has in fact been underscored how article 606, c 1, letter e of the Criminal Procedure Code precludes the (Supreme Court) judge from reappraisal but does not at all prevent him from verifying whether the appraisal was carried out according to logical criteria “whether, that is, the criteria of inference used by the court judge can be held to be plausible, or whether different ones can be allowed, capable of leading to different solutions [which are] equally plausible” (section IV, 12.11.2009, no 48320)....

So, to paraphrase, the Supreme Court is not allowed to countermand the trial court's findings of fact . . . unless there is an equally plausible alternative.

Notwithstanding what these imbeciles said, I'm betting that that's complete BS because it makes no sense.

 

[Mary_H]

God has the last few days been tedious.<snip>

The new trial is 10 days from starting. I doubt anything we argue over will make a difference but I'll guarantee that the recent debates won't.

Carla Vecchiotti's article was not tedious. She said that the clasp had been stored in the presence of an aqueous solution. No wonder it rusted.

To my point. Your contribution has for the most part been lost in the tedium of echos and mas(c)h potatoes.<snip>

I know exactly how you feel. The search function is not allowing me to do a search of "DNA," but if it would I'm sure the number would be rather much higher than almost any other topic.

It's all in your point of view.

 

[RWVBWL]

We talked and at this point I told her that I needed to
go to the bathroom, the kebab was bothering my
stomach. She said I could go to the bathroom near the
fridge, and I went. While I was in the bathroom I heard
the sound of the doorbell. I am sure because it rang
more than once.

I wonder, since the cottage has some serious sound quality
IF Nara heard the doorbell too?

 

[acbytesla]

Oh my goodness!
This post has me laughing out loud!


Gosh,
I bet that Amanda, practicing playing that same ol' Beatles song over+over again from the outside balcony during the daytime, +Rudy Guede breaking that outside window on a quiet November holiday night, and all the cars driving by daily+nightly must have really helped set the tone for some perfect serenity in Perugia...

You should read even further through the thread. Machiavelli joins Briars by saying that maybe the balcony doors were open in the cottage at 11:30 at night on November 1st with the temperature below 50 degrees.

These guys just don't care about logic in their reasoning. They're motto is if they are charged, the defendants MUST be guilty, so get a rope.

 

[Diocletus]

According the Italian supreme court:



So, to paraphrase, the Supreme Court is not allowed to countermand the trial court's findings of fact . . . unless there is an equally plausible alternative.

Notwithstanding what these imbeciles said, I'm betting that that's complete BS because it makes no sense.

Never mind. I've found that the Supreme Court is not citing any actual statute for this proposition. Instead, it's citing to one of its own prior decisions.

So, basically, there is a law that says that the Supreme Court can't second-guess the lower court's findings of fact. But then the Supreme Court has come in and said: "well, that only applies if there is no other plausible scenario that we prefer. So nah, nah, nah." The exception swallows the rule.

 

[Diocletus]

I wonder, since the cottage has some serious sound quality
IF Nara heard the doorbell too?

I'm surprised that this poor woman could ever sleep. Her window sounds like a black hole for sound. She could probably hear an ant farting on the basketball court.

 

[RWVBWL]

Random thoughts...

I don't know what problems she had with Amanda, but I
heard her complaining, so I got up and went to her
room. I saw she was furious and she said- her exact
words- "That whore of a doper." Heavy words for two
people who were friends. Then I asked what had
happened. She said she couldn't find her money and
she showed me the drawer next to the bed where she
also kept her lingerie. "Maybe it was a thief," I said. But
we saw there was no sign of a break-in, neither inside
nor outside the house. So it had to be someone from
the house and she was complaining only about
Amanda, and not about the other two girls who lived
there. From there she went to Amanda's room to see if there were signs of forced entry in her room but there weren't any. Then she opened Amanda's drawer, and
I saw her money wasn't there. Meredith knew where
Amanda kept the money and she became
(NDTossible word: “furious”).

Also, I checked the other rooms but everything was in order. So I tried to speak to her and calm her down,
saying that a girl shouldn't get upset or she'll get
wrinkles, and she laughed. I told her to laugh because
everything would eventually work out.

Rudy Guede's German Diary has him writing that Meredith went to see if there was a forced entry.

I wonder why?

He also writes that HE, himself checked all the other rooms.
That strikes me as odd, do you agree?

Maybe he is once more creating an alibi,
this time to cover his tracks regarding his presence in the other rooms...

For some reason I can't see Meredith ,
who some believe invited Rudy over for a "date" while her boyfriend was outta town on a holiday evening, asking the "date" to check all the other rooms.

And how does Rudy KNOW everything is in order?
The same way that Raffaele tells the cops on the phone that nothing was stolen?

Just a random thought...
RW

 

[Mary_H]

Amanda has written a beautiful essay for the Today show.

Amanda Knox imagines life in prison with 'letter to my unborn child'

 

[RoseMontague]

What is the gobbledegook?

Testimony is testimony. It's up to the jury to accept all or part, or reject any part of testimony that it wants to. It can do so for any reason it wants.

Don't feel bad, though. Your supreme court doesn't understand this, either.

No, it depends on who is testifying. If it is one of Guede's prisoner friends no, not reliable. If it is a drug dealing heroin addicted already under investigation for crimes homeless poop in the bushes serial witness for the prosecution who told the cops immediately after the murder that he saw nothing, then he is reliable.

 

[codyjuneau]

Randy,

Thanks for the link. I especially liked this paragraph: " The main issue with that type of samples is contamination: consequently, strict protocols must be applied during the inspection, collection, and sampling of such items at the crime scene (Giardina et al., 2011). The procedures recommended to reduce laboratory contamination are equally rigorous as it is well-known that contaminant DNA at low levels may derive from reagents and other laboratory consumables, from the technical staff and from cross-contamination from sample to sample. Indeed, in the context of the Kercher murder case, transfer of a suspect's DNA into a crime scene sample was of particular importance: in fact, it appears that crime scene inspection procedures destined to minimize contamination were not carried out according to international protocols (Fischer, 2003; Laboratory Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2007; ICPO-Interpol, 2009). Furthermore, it seems that no attempts were made to discover such events."
The author list of the Giardina paper includes none other than Dr. Novelli: Giardina, E., Spinella, A., and Novelli, G. (2011). Past, present and future of Forensic DNA typing. Nanomedicine 6, 257–270. doi: 10.2217/nnm.10.160 Readers of this thread have known about the article in Nanomedicine for two years. It would be nice to see someone explain how the views he expressed there are "compatible" with the view he expressed in the present case.

I was surprised to learn this: "It could not be analyzed by the Appellate Court experts as it had been stored by the scientific police in a tube containing extraction buffer, which made it completely rusty."

.
So the bra clasp did not rust just because it was incorrectly stored in a closed tube. It rusted because the tube also contained moisture. Was it not Mignini (and Machi also I believe) that told us it was normal and inevitable the bra clasp would rust during storage?

Is there any reasonable explanation, that does not include deliberate destruction of evidence, for how or why the bra clasp would have been stored this way Halides?

As Bill once said, 'Is there anything about this case that does not stink to high heaven'.
.

 

[RoseMontague]

What stopped her from conveying it? And when are we going to see this much-ballyhooed additional evidence that no other journalist conveyed either? Maybe at the first second third fourth trial? The suspense is killing me.

What a bunch of bologna.

I am still waiting for this boatload of evidence Machiavelli says shows Amanda was sexually attracted to Meredith. Good luck. He makes pronouncements but never delivers.

 

[RWVBWL]

A peaceful night of sleep?

I'm surprised that this poor woman could ever sleep. Her window sounds like a black hole for sound. She could probably hear an ant farting on the basketball court.

I hear you, Diocletus!
Those cars driving on the road between the cottage and Nara's apartment,
they must have been making a serious ruckus, what with all that sound traveling around, bouncing off the cottage and also droppin' down into the amphitheatere, err, I mean the valley and then bouncing back to Nara's place.

I too am suprised that Nara could ever sleep!

 

[RWVBWL]

The cat's blood?

Why do you suppose the Prosecution lied about the cat's blood?

Heya Diocletus,
What do you know about the cat's blood found downstairs, on the lightswitch and elsewhere?

Did you find out something that the prosecution does not want us to know about? Or is this just your personal opinion?
RW

 

[RoseMontague]

Oh my goodness!
This post has me laughing out loud!


Gosh,
I bet that Amanda, practicing playing that same ol' Beatles song over+over again from the outside balcony during the daytime, +Rudy Guede breaking that outside window on a quiet November holiday night, and all the cars driving by daily+nightly must have really helped set the tone for some perfect serenity in Perugia...

The whole thing is just dumb, thinking she would hear a loud scream from inside that cottage and behind her double pane closed windows (that she at first though might be a car accident, btw). Maybe she could hear something originally loud but by the time she heard it it wouldn't be the kind of scream she described. Again, it is up to the prosecution to prove it is possible, they have the burden of proof, even though Machiavelli keeps saying it is an error on part of the defense (everything is the fault of the defense including what Stefanoni withheld, because the defense did not specifically as for that precise e-gram, LOL). Let's see how the Florence court handles the new request from the defense.

 

[acbytesla]

Rudy Guede's German Diary has him writing that Meredith went to see if there was a forced entry.

I wonder why?

He also writes that HE, himself checked all the other rooms.
That strikes me as odd, do you agree?

Maybe he is once more creating an alibi,
this time to cover his tracks regarding his presence in the other rooms...

For some reason I can't see Meredith ,
who some believe invited Rudy over for a "date" while her boyfriend was outta town on a holiday evening, asking the "date" to check all the other rooms.

And how does Rudy KNOW everything is in order?
The same way that Raffaele tells the cops on the phone that nothing was stolen?

Just a random thought...
RW

Actually I think this is a great post RWVBWL. Forced entry?? How is it that Rudy is looking through Filomena, Lauras and Amandas bedroom on his first date and first time in the girl's residence?

 

[Diocletus]

Heya Diocletus,
What do you know about the cat's blood found downstairs, on the lightswitch and elsewhere?

Did you find out something that the prosecution does not want us to know about? Or is this just your personal opinion?
RW

There are 28 samples of blood from downstairs/outside. 22 amplified positive for human DNA.

Of those, 3 Egrams were generated:

1) Blood from comforter
2) Blood on lightswitch
3) Another blood on lightswitch

All three Egrams have been suppressed.

So, what I have learned is that it's not cat's blood, and moreover, the prosecution feels the need to lie about that to cover it up.

 

[Briars]

You should read even further through the thread. Machiavelli joins Briars by saying that maybe the balcony doors were open in the cottage at 11:30 at night on November 1st with the temperature below 50 degrees.

These guys just don't care about logic in their reasoning. They're motto is if they are charged, the defendants MUST be guilty, so get a rope.

Below 50 ,they were dressed , high, and engaging in activity. Compare that to naked , dripping wet and scooting slowly on a mat with the door left open all night, must have felt like 38 degrees.