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

[Grinder]

I know it's a little bit too early to start a legitimate discussion about it, but do you guys think that if the trace 36I is Meredith's DNA, then this is game over for Amanda and Raffaele? Obviously, they're innocent, but Meredith's DNA could get there in a number of ways - we know how though (Stefanoni and her team did the magic), if that's the case, then what's next? I've read some comments that if it's her DNA, then it's done. I, personally think that it shouldn't have that much of a meaning.

If C&V is still part of the case then this sample would be just as likely to be from contamination as the one already disallowed.

Well, I disagree, what can we do. I think you are a criminal if you offend people. I do not "belong" to the JREF laws. I may well follow other codes and violete JREF laws, since I think other laws are more important.
The fact is that you asserted that you don't offend persons, but in fact you actually offend individuals (and communities) to the point of not even considerig them persons (you do not grant them the minimal respect that you ar required to apply to posters).

Well to heart of the arguments with you. When people say that a rule or a procedure is idiotic you come back with the Italian system says this or that. You refuse to understand that a big part of people's frustration here is with the system that doesn't seek truth but rather is mostly about form, pomp and circumstance.

You wish to use Italian criminal laws for this forum. You think offending people should be a criminal offense. You don't think the director of the scientific police is a public position. She isn't a low level worker.

So much of the debate with you sails by both sides. You tell us how the law works in Italy and act as if you approve of the system and the other side here says if that is the case the system makes no sense.

It clearly makes no sense to allow Rudy to say in the letter what he said (as quoted by me up-thread) about the guilt of Amanda and Raf and yet not allow cross. You know it doesn't make sense but you fall back on Italian law as if it makes sense. You focus on the technical legal minutia rather than the broader discussion of what should be allowed in this case.

There is no practical reason the stain couldn't be tested no matter when it was first noticed or when the defense first requested it. This case has been running for six years and it is insulting to the search for the truth to say the tests requested can't be done.

You should use this discussion to perfect the Italian system as we should use it to perfect ours.

I do believe we should employ stronger penalties for lying even in court.

It doesn't make sense in terms of fairness for the accused. For the prosecutor it is just another unfair advantage. That is probably why it is allowed.

 

[snook1]

If C&V is still part of the case then this sample would be just as likely to be from contamination as the one already disallowed.

And from what we've heard, C&V is still part of the case. However, it would be nice to get a confirmation on this.

Well it is a change from they didn't test because it would damage the evidence. I agree with you snook1, it is just as relevant now than it was then. It may even be more relevant now in light of the ISC directives. One thing I am curious about in Machiavelli's statement. He seems to be saying that the Kerchers opposed the testing of this stain initially because he adds it was "later" that the judges refused. I wasn't aware of this. Strange, if true.

Strange, indeed.
I'm no expert or a lawyer, so my opinion is irrelevant, but for me it's pretty clear that the stain SHOULD be tested back in 2007 (and at first trial in 2009, at the Hellmann appeal in 2010/2011). This latest trial is the last chance to set the record straight once and for all. And as we both said it, the SC's ruling indicates that they believe in this sex game gone wrong theory, so it's really not a brainer to give it a try with the stain.

 

[MDDVS]

And from what we've heard, C&V is still part of the case. However, it would be nice to get a confirmation on this.


Strange, indeed.
I'm no expert or a lawyer, so my opinion is irrelevant, but for me it's pretty clear that the stain SHOULD be tested back in 2007 (and at first trial in 2009, at the Hellmann appeal in 2010/2011). This latest trial is the last chance to set the record straight once and for all. And as we both said it, the SC's ruling indicates that they believe in this sex game gone wrong theory, so it's really not a brainer to give it a try with the stain.

How can people speculate about a "sex game gone wrong" when there isn't a single shred evidence for a sex game at all. I repeat:nothing at all. No evidence of use ropes, candles, any kind of sex toy or torture device. Given this situation, where did this idea of a sex game come from? Maybe from watching too many "giallo" movies and rape porn? That's my guess to be honest.

 

[tsig]

Tsig,
Didn't you used to be a cop in Australia for a few years?
Would your Aussie Police Department crime specialists have tested an apparent semen stain found in a sex crime on the pillow case of a pillow placed under the dead womens naked genitalia?

Simple question,
a yes or no answer would be cool...

No.

 

[snook1]

How can people speculate about a "sex game gone wrong" when there isn't a single shred evidence for a sex game at all. I repeat:nothing at all. No evidence of use ropes, candles, any kind of sex toy or torture device. Given this situation, where did this idea of a sex game come from? Maybe from watching too many "giallo" movies and rape porn? That's my guess to be honest.

The thing is, no one is speculating this was a "sex game gone wrong", not even the PGP (as they NEVER came up with a plausible scenario on to how, why and when Amanda, Raffaele and Guede killed Meredith). To speculate, one would have to have evidence, there was none.The only people that are saying it might've been a sex game are the judges, and now, to a lesser extent, the prosecutors. From what I can remember it was Judge Micheli who first believed Mignini's theory that it was a sexual encounter between the four of them and now the Supreme Court whined about how it was forgotten.

 

[LondonJohn]

Exactly. From the point of view of judges, the second example follows the law.
While the first example is obviously unlawful because witnesses are not allowed to make statements in court.
But an extra-judicial declaration is considered not only legitimate, but valid as a legal document.



Yes. They can. But only if they enjoy also the additional status of "co-defendant", of "defendant in connected proceedings" or "ex co-defendant/ in connected proceedings", and only about the topic on which they were co-defendants.
In fact, if yout think about it, it's what Sollecito and Knox did when they wrote their book. They made extra judicial-declarations on which they avoided cross questionings.

This is allowed. However there are also provisions regarding the credibility of a witness when such things happens, and the witness refuses to confirm accusations in court.

If this is true, it only goes to speak even more as to the dreadful fascistic leaning of the Italian criminal justice system. To me, it's more than clear that the system desperately needs a root-and-branch reform.

Of course, the way it SHOULD work in a modern democracy is that 1) A court should reason its verdicts only on evidence/testimony placed before it (and thus ignore everything said/written outside the courtroom unless and until it's properly brought into the courtroom); and 2) ALL testimony and evidence brought into the courtroom should be able to be tested under direct and cross-examination.

Therefore, if - for example - a gun is produced in court belonging to the defendant, where the prosecution say that it identically matches the bullet found in the body of the victim, the defence MUST be able to see the gun and examine it themselves, and they MUST be able question those who linked the gun to the bullet, in order to determine the competency of the experts and the strength of the identification.

Likewise, if a person were to write to a newspaper stating that he knew that the suspect had killed the victim, then one of two things should happen: either a) the person is called to court to testify, and can be examined/cross-examined in order to investigate his claims and judge his credibility; or b) this information is totally excluded from the trial process, and is inadmissible as evidence against the suspect.

 

[acbytesla]

Stefanoni is a molecular biologist and a witness, not a public figure.
You don't have a shread of evidence to allee she is lying; but moreover nothing justifies insults and slurs against anyone, name calling for the sake of it is indefensible (several posters like to indulge in this). The same goes for your numerous xenophobic attacks.

Stefanoni is like Mignini. Both are LIARS. Both lack personal integrity. Both should be at least, fired. Instead the crazy country of Italy promotes these two scumbags.

Mignini's actions in the Monster of Florence case demonstrates that he is crazy and stupid. Considering the damage that he has done to so many people including his victims in the Monster of Florence and by the victims, I'm talking about the countless number of people that he falsely accused and imprisoned, Mignini should actually not only be fired but sent to to jail for his misdeeds.

Stefanoni's dishonesty in this case by both hiding exculpatory evidence including missing egrams, negative TMB tests, as well as the missing negative controls records.

Both Stef and Mig are scumbags and both are damaging to the Italian justice system.

 

[Bill Williams]

Still, you have nothing to talk about. You constantly let Sollecito and Knox off the hook, if that's a point. And so? Is that an argument? This is just obvious, due to the fact that we have opposite views.

Basically you are re-stating the fact that we disagree.

But you have nothing to talk about, since you are talking about me, you, Vogt, that we disagree, etc. The generics and the obvious, and about people (me, you, Vogt, etc.) who are not a topic.
It means you have no argument. You disagree on the topic of what Stefanoni did? Then speak about that topic.

The topic is that both you and Andrea Vogt simply parrot the 1st prosecution. If you don't wish to demonstrate otherwise that is your business.

you simply wish to avoid talking about how you and Ms. Vogt do this. Neither you nor she have provided one counter example. Why? Because the two of you defend Mignini, often arguing against the evidence, for instance as it relates to Stefanoni.

You have a perfect right to do this. You do not need to apologize for this consistent and loyal support for Mr. Mignini.

it is instructive that you don't wish to talk about it even to refute it.

Why do you and Ms. Vogt wish to mask your loyalty to Mignini?

 

[yimyammer]

If C&V is still part of the case then this sample would be just as likely to be from contamination as the one already disallowed.



Well to heart of the arguments with you. When people say that a rule or a procedure is idiotic you come back with the Italian system says this or that. You refuse to understand that a big part of people's frustration here is with the system that doesn't seek truth but rather is mostly about form, pomp and circumstance.

You wish to use Italian criminal laws for this forum. You think offending people should be a criminal offense. You don't think the director of the scientific police is a public position. She isn't a low level worker.

So much of the debate with you sails by both sides. You tell us how the law works in Italy and act as if you approve of the system and the other side here says if that is the case the system makes no sense.

It clearly makes no sense to allow Rudy to say in the letter what he said (as quoted by me up-thread) about the guilt of Amanda and Raf and yet not allow cross. You know it doesn't make sense but you fall back on Italian law as if it makes sense. You focus on the technical legal minutia rather than the broader discussion of what should be allowed in this case.

There is no practical reason the stain couldn't be tested no matter when it was first noticed or when the defense first requested it. This case has been running for six years and it is insulting to the search for the truth to say the tests requested can't be done.

You should use this discussion to perfect the Italian system as we should use it to perfect ours.

I do believe we should employ stronger penalties for lying even in court.

Well said, amigo!

I strive to keep an open mind and be wary of personal blind spots that may keep me from seeing (or be willing to see) the truth of any subject but I have never encountered a subject in my life like this case where both sides are so completely polarized yet so certain of their position. (I realize religion & politics are similar)

It's really made me question my sanity a bit and wonder if I've lost it but at the end of the day I still land firmly on the side of innocence and at the very least not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't proclaim the US system that I live within is the best or perfect in any way but IMO sweeping changes need to be made to the Italian system so that either side can't simply manipulate the system to acquire a "win". Obviously the goal should be to see truth & justice prevail, regardless of how that makes anyone involved look.

This constant appeal to the law and various codes and procedures vs seeking the truth is bewildering to me, I'm actually stunned to see it consistently put into words. Thankfully this forum is not bound by them.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

I'm not entirely clear on why a positive test for Rudy Guede on the semen stain would be exculpatory with respect to Knox and Sollecito (not that I think they should need it).

 

[Dan O.]

It's indirect. The confirmation of semen belonging to Rudy Guede provides the factual support that would revitalize the testimony of Mario Alessi. If Mario is believed, Rudy talked about how he (and a drinking buddy) committed the murder and Raffaele and Amanda had nothing to do with it.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

Okay, I'd never paid any attention to Alessi's testimony because he's self-evidently unreliable. But having now looked into it, what he claims to have been told by Guede is obviously nonsense. Not that that in any way justifies not conducting the test.

 

[Bill Williams]

Still, you have nothing to talk about. You constantly let Sollecito and Knox off the hook, if that's a point. And so? Is that an argument? This is just obvious, due to the fact that we have opposite views.

Basically you are re-stating the fact that we disagree.

But you have nothing to talk about, since you are talking about me, you, Vogt, that we disagree, etc. The generics and the obvious, and about people (me, you, Vogt, etc.) who are not a topic.
It means you have no argument. You disagree on the topic of what Stefanoni did? Then speak about that topic.

Sometimes the parallels which you and Andrea Vogt make give your game away.

I say that you continually advance the case as if it was still being prosecuted by Mr. Mignini. You will say nothing negative about him, and regard him as right on all theories and rules of law.

What you claim I do, using your parallel, is let Knox and Sollecito off the hook.

Do you see the mistake you are making? No you do not.

This is NOT Mr. Mignini against two innocent people. Mignini's "opponents" are the defence lawyers.

Suddenly it all makes sense - the reason why you advance theories like that you can tell that Knox can choose to be immune from sleep deprivation, something you divined by reading her writings, is because you need her rested and relaxed as she went into interrogation - rested and ready to pull the wool over Mr. Mignini's eyes with her cunning.

For you, for Ms. Vogt, and for Mr. Mignini, this is Mr. Mignini not against other lawyers or even the court......

..... you are actually against the wrongfully prosecuted! But you are still trying to defend Mignini FROM the wrongfully prosecuted as if it was their fault that they pulled the wool over Mignini's eyes with his "case closed" on Nov 6.

You remember that embarrassment don't you. Caso Chiuso.

I am glad you posted what you posted. It makes things clear.

 

[Supernaut]

Stefanoni is a molecular biologist and a witness, not a public figure.
You don't have a shread of evidence to allee she is lying; but moreover nothing justifies insults and slurs against anyone, name calling for the sake of it is indefensible (several posters like to indulge in this). The same goes for your numerous xenophobic attacks.

Patrizia Stefanoni is a "molecular biologist"?

No, she isn't, not as that's understood anywhere but Italy.

Last I heard, she had the equivalent of BSc in biology, and worked as a jumped-up lab-tech. at the 'polizia scientifica'.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm not entirely clear on why a positive test for Rudy Guede on the semen stain would be exculpatory with respect to Knox and Sollecito (not that I think they should need it).

The prosecution does not need yet another piece of forensics pointing away from Raffaele. So far it is everything points to Rudy as a sole killer, and nothing pointing to Raffaele..... if they test it and find it is Rudy's, than that simply makes everyone's eyes roll all the more.

The Kercher's wish all tests made. I agree. Maresca, their own lawyer, opposes more tests. Why?

 

[codyjuneau]

The prosecution does not need yet another piece of forensics pointing away from Raffaele. So far it is everything points to Rudy as a sole killer, and nothing pointing to Raffaele..... if they test it and find it is Rudy's, than that simply makes everyone's eyes roll all the more.

The Kercher's wish all tests made. I agree. Maresca, their own lawyer, opposes more tests. Why?

.
Perhaps the Kerchers should fire Maresca and hire the lawyer from the TV show that demonstrated the climb through the window. Then they could get him to sue Maresca for representing Mignini, instead of themselves. Also, they could get their new lawyer to petition for a re-investigation of the case by independent investigators.
.

 

[Supernaut]

I'm not entirely clear on why a positive test for Rudy Guede on the semen stain would be exculpatory with respect to Knox and Sollecito (not that I think they should need it).

Because from the outset they needed to paint Guede as merely "an accomplice".

The problem they had was that there was plenty of direct physical evidence of his presence (finger and palm prints, shoe-prints, cellular DNA) which made - makes the LACK of comparable evidence of Amanda's and Raff's presence rather conspicuous.

I would venture to suggest that, had his semen been identified, this would have stretched everyone's credulity, even the jury at the first trial, to breaking-point.

But even Mignini and Stefanoni weren't prepared to simply LIE, and say that it had been analysed and found NOT to be semen, let alone that it was, but to then lie about from whom.

Hence "it can't be dated" or "it might be Vaseline", blah, blah, and is thus "of no interest".

ETA >> you asked why, if the stain proved to be Guede's semen, this would be exculpatory evidence for Knox and Sollecito NOW; all the above still applies, IMO.

[further editing for clarity. God - I really appreciate RoseMontague's sig]

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I'm not entirely clear on why a positive test for Rudy Guede on the semen stain would be exculpatory with respect to Knox and Sollecito (not that I think they should need it).

The prosecution and its lackeys in this dismal case are up against an obvious scenario: Guede broke into the place, and when Meredith came home, he attacked her, cut her throat, and sexually assaulted her as she lay dying. The stain in question, if indeed it was shown to be Guede's semen, would further reinforce this. It would cast further doubt on the forensic artifacts used to prop up the belief that something else happened, and somehow it involved Amanda and Raffaele. It would shift the focus away from the realm of mythology, and direct public attention to the truth of what really happened.

 

[RoseMontague]

The prosecution and its lackeys in this dismal case are up against an obvious scenario: Guede broke into the place, and when Meredith came home, he attacked her, cut her throat, and sexually assaulted her as she lay dying. The stain in question, if indeed it was shown to be Guede's semen, would further reinforce this. It would cast further doubt on the forensic artifacts used to prop up the belief that something else happened, and somehow it involved Amanda and Raffaele. It would shift the focus away from the realm of mythology, and direct public attention to the truth of what really happened.

And when Rudy is out on work release (next year), it will really hit home what Italian justice has done, imo.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

letter

I'm not entirely clear on why a positive test for Rudy Guede on the semen stain would be exculpatory with respect to Knox and Sollecito (not that I think they should need it).

It would undercut Guede's letter (the one that should not have been read in the first place).