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

[Machiavelli]

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.

(...)

No, look it's really quite simple. You campaign in favor of Knox because you believe she is wrongfully prosecuted and that the "other side" guys are bad; because you believe that "innocence" is the "truth"; that your accusations against other people are also 'true', as a consequence.
You just do your caimpagn because you believe your stance is the truth.

I do my campaign because I believe my stance is the truth, and yours is false.

It's not people like Mignini who oppose others; it's my truth against your truth.

I defend my point not because someone is opposed to someone else, but because my point is the truth. Just like Knox and Sollecito from your point of view, Mignini and Stefanoni and several other people are just to be defendend from your wild allegations not of because who they are, but just because your accusations are false, they are an injustice and a crime.

 

[Kaosium]

I would find it interesting to know whether Machiavell knows Vogt or not and whether he has had any discussions with her that he could share with this thread. However, I am only a casual follower of this thread and this discussion has gone completely over my head. Is there any reason to believe that Machiavelli and Vogt know each other? What is the purpose of all the veiled allusions to this alleged relationship? Does anybody know anything relevant about this that can be posted in this thread consistent with the JREF forum rules?


I didn't know enough to be annoyed by the Machiavell/Vogt posts. I assumed that there were facts to back up what the discussion was about and I just wasn't aware of them. If there aren't any facts that can be shared in this thread about that then I will join the ranks of the annoyed on this.

PMF has had an extensive relationship with Andrea Vogt, she's quoted their posters as 'experts' (even though they weren't), been photographed with PMF up on her screen, written stories generated from their 'take' on the case and the moderator has admitted to a regular e-mail relationship. I don't recall anything specific about what you asked, I'll leave it to him to answer if he so chooses.

 

[Machiavelli]

"Lying" is such a harsh term, isn't it? I much prefer "intentional mis-statement" - something like submitting a false PCR quantification document in a murder trial. Or maybe giving bogus HIV test results to a terrified young woman.

No not harsh just false. Just as false as agglegations of "intentional mis-statement" or submitting false documentation.
As well as the allegation that (someone else?) submitted bogus HIV tests.
These allegations are wild assertions and false not harsh.

 

[Kaosium]

No not harsh just false. Just as false as agglegations of "intentional mis-statement" or submitting false documentation.
As well as the allegation that (someone else?) submitted bogus HIV tests.
These allegations are wild assertions and false not harsh.

Machiavelli, who was it that told the court there were no TMB tests done on the luminol hits? Was that true? How is it possible that person could have been innocently mistaken being as it was in the records they (originally) withheld?

 

[Machiavelli]

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'.

No, you are just twisting. A bachelor's degree in the Saxon world is a 3-year course. Stefanoni got a biology degree at the University of Naples which was a 5-year degree at the time, so it's equivalent to a master degree.
She is not a 'lab technician', but a biologist, recognized as such in any European environment.

By comparison, Vecchiotti and Conti don't have any degree in biology at all. They have degrees in medicine. And sfter that, they had specialization but none of them has one in genetics or biology. Vecchiotti is a 'legal doctor', she is supposed to perform autopsies and research on bodies. Conti is specialized as an air-pilots doctor (!).

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, who was it that told the court there were no TMB tests done on the luminol hits? Was that true? How is it possible that person could have been innocently mistaken being as it was in the records they (originally) withheld?

First of all, you should prove that Stefanoni made such statement. Because I did not find such alleged statement in the transcripts.
Second, you should anyway question yourself where the defence experts were, since they were present when Stefanoni tested the luminol footprints. They were supposed to be outside the cottage, in a video-audio connection from a van parked outside, and they were supposed to access all information about what was being done.
Third, the defences were also given full documentation, including all videos of operations performed at the cottage, so they had full information about what Stefanoni actually did.
Fourth, the defence could access all operation Stefanoni performed at the lab, and they were always summoned.
Fifth, the defences were given information about TMB tests directly from Stefanoni. It was Stefanoni who gave them the papers with TMB test results.

 

[Kaosium]

First of all, you should prove that Stefanoni made such statement. Because I did not find such alleged statement in the transcripts.
Second, you should anyway question yourself where the defence experts were, since they were present when Stefanoni tested the luminol footprints. They were supposed to be outside the cottage, in a video-audio connection from a van parked outside, and they were supposed to access all information about what was being done.
Third, the defences were also given full documentation, including all videos of operations performed at the cottage, so they had full information about what Stefanoni actually did.
Fourth, the defence could access all operation Stefanoni performed at the lab, and they were always summoned.
Fifth, the defences were given information about TMB tests directly from Stefanoni. It was Stefanoni who gave them the papers with TMB test results.

Here is how it is recorded in Massei:

With respect to the Luminol-positive traces found in Romanelli's room, in Knox's room and in the corridor, she stated that by analysing the SAL cards "we learn, in contradiction to what was presented in the technical report deposited by the Scientific Police, and also to what was said in Court, that not only was the Luminol test performed on these traces, but also the generic diagnosis for the presence of blood, using tetramethylbenzidine...and this test...gave a negative result on all the items of evidence from which it was possible to obtain a genetic profile" (pages 73 and 74).

Who was it who wrote that 'technical report?' I'm assuming she's referring to the RTIGF, which I know she wrote a great deal of at the very least, did she have...collaborators? (entendre intended! ) Who was it that testified in court regarding the work done on the luminol hits, Stefanoni was quoted extensively in that section as well, thus it would seem likely it was her as well. I've read a number of people say the person who testified in court regarding the TMB tests not being done was Stefanoni and considering the above have no reason to disbelieve that. Why should I?

Regarding the TMB tests, how on earth would those attorneys know what doing a TMB test looked like? Do you know? Did they use Hemostix strips, or did they mix it up in a bottle and add hydrogen peroxide and glacial acetic acid? How would these defense lawyers, who to my knowledge were not very experienced in murder cases, know what the process of doing a TMB test looked like and how well were the cameras detailing what the guys crouching over the luminol hits were doing, or for that matter what the ones off-camera were doing? It only takes a minute or so to prepare these tests, less with Hemostix, and to apply it might take seconds. How would they know it wasn't just part of the luminol tests, which according to a number of sources--including Garofano--the clowns doing the luminol tests didn't even know what they were doing, how would you expect these defense lawyers to be better versed in these blood tests and how to identify them on selective view shaky-cam?

The defense didn't get the reports including the negative TMB tests until they wailed and screamed and held their breath--and after the polizia scientifica (whoever it was) had told the court they were not done and tried to fraudulently represent the luminol hits as 'blood.' A negative blood test is what's known as a falsifier in the forensic world, it means your hypothesis (that the hits were blood) was false. If whoever conducted those tests had any reason (like they had to come up with when they were caught lying) to suspect they still might be blood they'd have done a confirmatory test like they did on other items, that's what's actually required to prove blood, these presumptive tests just suggest its presence by not falsifying it.

 

[moije2]

You believe that Amanda is innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt. Therefore Vogt believing in the prosecution case and interpretations of laws makes her a poor journalist. However, CD taking the FOA stand and repeating their talking points causes you no stress because CD is on the right side of the case.

While I firmly believe that the ILE did not make their case, I think that in law the prosecution has won most of the legal technical battles as well as the war at the ISC.

I think that Vogt destroyed her standing much more by interviewing Laura Wray as a DNA expert than by believing the prosecution case.

I don't see why pounding on this possible relationship of Vogt and Mach is helpful and significant.

ETA - Does CD report or promote? Do you have a problem with her?

A note of comparison: Vogt linked in her writings the URL to the wiki whatever page that is full bore propaganda by full on guilters. That is by any stretch of the imagination not objective reporting, and it is not disclosed as monumentally biased as a resource. I would be interested to see if a near-comparable can be found for Candace Dempsey. On the surface she doesn't strike me as being as off kilter as Vogt seems, and while being on the innocent side of the aisle Candace does not seem as bothersome.

 

[moije2]

I do hope we will get some good news soon.

Nice to see that the knife has apparently been in the possession of C&V. During all these discussions re possible outcomes, foremost on my mind was if the evidence could have been tampered with. This provides at least some hope in that regard.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I've been getting interested in the case a bit more, and have been listening to Knox's audiobook. I'm also watching the Lifetime TV movie. Cheesy, I know, but I guess I'm going into an absorption mode to get a better feel for the whole thing.

As I've said in this thread before, my view is that believing Knox and her bf were involved seems really silly, but since I am not an expert on this case, I guess there is maybe a 1% doubt in my mind.

Would anyone who really knows the case well, be willing to lay out a short list of what those who still believe in her guilt view as their absolute best evidence, and the debunkings of it?

As I'm taking in all this stuff, the one thing that did sort of make me think "hmm" was perhaps the coincidence of using a mop that very same night/day. I figure I'd have heard about it if the mop either was never found, or had blood on it, though. There also doesn't seem to be a logical reason a mop would've been needed to clean up... there was still blood everywhere, etc. Did they substantiate that Sollecito's sink really was leaking around this time?

I don't want to give the impression that I seriously entertain their guilt, but as I said, I'm still enough of a novice that I would appreciate some help. Is there ANY rational case to be made for even doubting their innocence at this point?

 

[Kaosium]

A note of comparison: Vogt linked in her writings the URL to the wiki whatever page that is full bore propaganda by full on guilters. That is by any stretch of the imagination not objective reporting, and it is not disclosed as monumentally biased as a resource. I would be interested to see if a near-comparable can be found for Candace Dempsey. On the surface she doesn't strike me as being as off kilter as Vogt seems, and while being on the innocent side of the aisle Candace does not seem as bothersome.

Are you talking about themurderofmeredithkercher.com? She actually linked that page as a resource?

Take a look at the very first claim regarding the number of attackers and then at this:

The consultants and forensic scientists have asserted that from the point of view of forensic science, it cannot be ruled out that the author of the injuries could have been a single attacker, because the bruises and the wounds from a pointed and cutting weapon are not in themselves incompatible with the action of a single person. With regard to this, it is nevertheless observed that the contribution of each discipline is specifically in the domain of the specific competence of that discipline, and in fact the consultants and forensic experts concentrated their attention on the aspects specifically belonging to forensic science: time of death, cause of death, elements indicating sexual violence, the injuries present on the body of the victim, and the causes and descriptions of these. The answer given above concerning the possibility of their being inflicted by the action of a single person or by more than one was given in relation to these specific duties and questions, which belong precisely to the domain of forensic science, and the meaning of this answer was thus that there are no scientific elements arising directly from forensic science which could rule out the injuries having been caused by the action of a single person.

That includes the prosecution forensic experts as well, and whoever wrote that entry at the 'wiki' site never points out that at Rudy Guede's trial it was in the interest of every involved party to produce 'evidence' and 'suggestions' that there were other people involved, there was no defense of Amanda and Raffaele at that trial to ask impertinent questions of the forensic experts like 'could this have been the result of a single attacker?' Guede himself received a mitigation (lesser sentence) because he was (supposedly) just involved with others and Mignini (at Amanda and Raffaele's trial) even pretended he was 'poor Rudy' being blamed by the other two baduns!

The prosecution still had to come up with 'suggestions' more than one person was involved, but one can tell by the ones they came up with just how lame and limited in scope they are. Few defensive wounds? Gee, I wonder if the man with a knife menacing her was enough to keep her from struggling until it was too late, some people when confronted with a knife tend to do what that person insists because they're afraid they might get hurt if they don't!

Anything from Micheli's trial that didn't survive Massei is because the prosecution couldn't even convince a convicting judge of those dubious contentions when there was an active defense against them and not two sides trying to sluff as much off on someone else as they could.

What's this about the 'clean chest?' in the second entry? She had aspirated blood droplets there suggesting her bra was removed while she was still breathing. Lemme guess, no one brought that up at Rudy's trial like they did in the Massei court, thus that fraudulent conclusion was reached at his trial?

That site is deliberate disinformation, relying on 'conclusions' that were never contested by an active defense and other things that couldn't survive scrutiny, as well as warped and twisted versions of just about everything else. That's just from reading a few entries, is there any good parts to that page? This just goes to show why bunnies must flee any venue they cannot control, this stuff is so easily debunked.

It's sickening.

 

[RandyN]

No not harsh just false. Just as false as agglegations of "intentional mis-statement" or submitting false documentation. As well as the allegation that (someone else?) submitted bogus HIV tests.
These allegations are wild assertions and false not harsh.

Must be Yummi II tonight.

Yes, telling Knox she was HIV positive is not just a wild assertion but most would consider it a cruel evil trick that should never have happened...but since this comes from the people who invented crucifixion what more can be expected.

You are mistaken Yummi...it may be a crime in Italy for you to call Mignini a lying fat slob. But since I can give an example that he lied ...in fact several and plus the fact that he is fat and not a good dresser then I can call him that especially since he is a public figure.

Perhaps you miss the posts on the internets where people call our politicians lazy no good slobs. Even the POTUS...so what makes you think we are concerned about what we call some corrupt lying fat slob from Perugia?

What I don't understand is why the average Italian puts up with the lousy corrupt mafia (as in acts just like the mafia) prosecutors like Mignini. Italians use the term casino but why accept this? And sure we have rotten eggs just like Mignini...probably hundreds...but you will never find the whole country aligned behind a stinker like him. He brings shame to your judiciary. He uses it as if its a joke and in the end he shows it to the world as a joke. Bringing a ridiculous case like this and using illogical arguments and highly suspicious facts and questionable evidence while ignoring outright foolish claims by police and even the prosecutor himself allows the courts to be considered as a joke since they appear to have no standards at all. No respect is shown for the law. Judges order people like Stefanoni to do things (like turn over data to the IE) and she twice refuses by email to the judge. And he calmly replies to her to please give them what they need.

I can promise you that would not happen here. She would refuse once...and on the next try her refusal would get her put in jail. And not just that but it would highlight a need to review all her work since she appears to have some problem acting in a professional manner. The defense would raise the matter that she has shown a pattern of refusing discovery which she clearly did in this case from the beginning when she lied about the quantification of sample 36B before her first judge, and then caused a trial delay for Massei when she withheld DNA data once more and Massei ordered it turned over and went to summer recess early...and you wonder who is to blame for trial delay...then she refused to turn the data over to C and V which led to the email exchanges between the judge and C and V and Stefanoni. In the end it is not clear if she fully complied...but what is certain is that whatever she produced she did so only on the day the C and V report was due in court and so forced C&V to request a delay from the court. What do you expect Hellman and Zenetti thought about that behavior honestly? Im telling you that in a real court her actions would have landed her in jail and also canceled all her work since she appears to have no respect for anything.

BTW...in Italy do you understand the concept of "conflict of interest"? I ask that because of the strange situation of Biondo acting as a prosecution consultant while in charge of the same lab that did the testing. This type of conflict of interest would nullify and cast severe doubt on any work done by this lab. Don't worry the press has been too distracted to bother noticing this corrupt practice yet. When they eventually find out it will be another chicken feather in the cap of Italian justice.

 

[RandyN]

Andrea Vogt was at the International Journalism Festival today, not in court at all. La Nazione had the best coverage today.

What kind of an oxymoron do you take me for?

Did she travel there in a flying saucer? Abducted by aliens and now is pregnant with an alien baby?

Vogt going to a "journalism" festival is like Mignini being put in charge of ethics for the whole Italian judicial system...oh wait.

Or maybe Barbie winning a Pulitzer...yea thats the ticket.

 

[Kaosium]

I've been getting interested in the case a bit more, and have been listening to Knox's audiobook. I'm also watching the Lifetime TV movie. Cheesy, I know, but I guess I'm going into an absorption mode to get a better feel for the whole thing.

As I've said in this thread before, my view is that believing Knox and her bf were involved seems really silly, but since I am not an expert on this case, I guess there is maybe a 1% doubt in my mind.

Would anyone who really knows the case well, be willing to lay out a short list of what those who still believe in her guilt view as their absolute best evidence, and the debunkings of it?

If someone who believes in guilt wants to lay it out I'm sure it will get debunked by someone here!

If you want to, go to that page I just linked and find a contention that appears damning and post it, there's a number that look like good indications of guilt for someone who doesn't know much about the case, the thing is they're actually more damning of the prosecution case once you realize what they're really talking about. I didn't see it in a cursory glance, but if you come across anything about 'mixed blood' I know exactly the post I'll link, one that shows precisely how they assembled that contention with a particularly dishonest brand of forensic sophistry. Note that not even Massei could swallow 'mixed blood' either, it's fundamentally dishonest and amounts to little more than the police smearing something with the victim's blood all over someone's sink and when the expected DNA traces of the sink owner show up claim that as 'evidence' they were involved.

As I'm taking in all this stuff, the one thing that did sort of make me think "hmm" was perhaps the coincidence of using a mop that very same night/day. I figure I'd have heard about it if the mop either was never found, or had blood on it, though. There also doesn't seem to be a logical reason a mop would've been needed to clean up... there was still blood everywhere, etc. Did they substantiate that Sollecito's sink really was leaking around this time?

I don't want to give the impression that I seriously entertain their guilt, but as I said, I'm still enough of a novice that I would appreciate some help. Is there ANY rational case to be made for even doubting their innocence at this point?

Heh, the mop was just a coincidence, they did indeed test it and it was clean and there was little mention of it again until recently. However that and a few other mistakes/coincidences likely led to them being suspicious of Amanda. One was her not telling them about exchanging texts with Patrick the night of the murder, then when confronted by it not remembering it at first. That occurred about a half-hour before Meredith left for home, it must have seemed suspicious at the time, though we now know Patrick's texts had nothing to do with the murder. Another big mistake was not realizing this window (the near one at top) was a lot easier to scale than it looked from that angle. That and the fact that not much was taken caused them to immediately fixate on the idea that the break-in was 'staged' and thus to look closer at the occupants....

 

[RandyN]

No, you are just twisting. A bachelor's degree in the Saxon world is a 3-year course. Stefanoni got a biology degree at the University of Naples which was a 5-year degree at the time, so it's equivalent to a master degree.
She is not a 'lab technician', but a biologist, recognized as such in any European environment.

By comparison, Vecchiotti and Conti don't have any degree in biology at all. They have degrees in medicine. And sfter that, they had specialization but none of them has one in genetics or biology. Vecchiotti is a 'legal doctor', she is supposed to perform autopsies and research on bodies. Conti is specialized as an air-pilots doctor (!).

Oh dear...here in the real world we would call Vecchiotti a pathologist. This specialty requires 8 more years study after becoming a regular doctor. And trust me they study plenty of biology and chemistry and anatomy...but sure Stefanoni is more qualified. BTW in the real world a bachelors is 4 year and to add Masters is another 2 years...one can become a pharmacist with a 5 year degree but thats about it. I am sticking with deluxe lab tech...although going by her work example in the video I'm guessing she is only a lab tech assistant and chief mop wrapper at best.

 

[moije2]

Are you talking about themurderofmeredithkercher.com? She actually linked that page as a resource?

Take a look at the very first claim regarding the number of attackers and then at this:



That includes the prosecution forensic experts as well, and he never points out that at Rudy Guede's trial it was in the interest of every involved party to produce 'evidence' and 'suggestions' that there were other people involved, there was no defense of Amanda and Raffaele at that trial to ask impertenant questions of the forensic experts like 'could this have been the result of a single attacker?' Guede himself received a mitigation (lesser sentence) because he was (supposedly) just involved with others and Mignini (at Amanda and Raffaele's trial) even pretended he was 'poor Rudy' being blamed by the other two baduns!

The prosecution still had to come up with 'suggestions' more than one person was involved, but one can tell by the ones they came up with just how lame and limited in scope they are. Few defensive wounds? Gee, I wonder if the man with a knife menacing her was enough to keep her from struggling until it was too late, some people when confronted with a knife tend to do what that person insists because they're afraid they might get hurt if they don't!

Anything from Micheli's trial that didn't survive Massei is because the prosecution couldn't even convince a convicting judge of those dubious contentions when there was an active defense against them and not two sides trying to sluff as much off on someone else as they could.

What's this about the 'clean chest?' in the second entry? She had aspirated blood droplets there suggesting her bra was removed while she was still breathing. Lemme guess, no one brought that up at Rudy's trial like they did in the Massei court, thus that fraudulent conclusion was reached at his trial?

That site is deliberate disinformation, relying on 'conclusions' that were never contested by an active defense and other things that couldn't survive scrutiny, as well as warped and twisted versions of just about everything else. That's just from reading a few entries, is there any good parts to that page? This just goes to show why bunnies must flee any venue they cannot control, this stuff is so easily debunked.

It's sickening.

Yes, that is it. See: http://thefreelancedesk.com/front_featured/amanda-knox-appeal-2/

Look not far down in her post where she recommends that link for getting an understanding of the case. Precisely my point. Deliberate misrepresentation. So she is completely outside the realm of a reasonable reporter. At least say words to the effect that "some people assert" or some other CYA. But that material is beyond the pale. Now, whether CD can be compared for her writings... well, I don't think so, but will stand corrected. If she repeats "talking points" and those talking points are blatant misstatements then I will look at her differently.

With regard to the right to take a position on evidence and what it means, I remember some years ago - my how time flies - when I first got interested in this case, and I had a brief exchange on line with H Rag or machine, I am not sure, and I pointed out to him (since I was at that time truly new to the case) that if he wanted to make a better argument for her guilt, it would be better to not push all of the half truths which translated into falsehoods to me. I, at that time sincerely meant it as instructional to him since he was obviously with an agenda to promote the guilt of AK and RS. Silly me, he quickly signed me off as "one of Bruce Fisher's disciples" or something similar. So then I had to look him up too...

So, when Vogt refers people to such sites it becomes beyond patent that she is not a serious writer. And for those people new to the case it may also have the same effect on them as me - the best way to convince of innocence is to read the guilters' sites, as long as they have just a little bit of time.

 

[RandyN]

First of all, you should prove that Stefanoni made such statement. Because I did not find such alleged statement in the transcripts.
Second, you should anyway question yourself where the defence experts were, since they were present when Stefanoni tested the luminol footprints. They were supposed to be outside the cottage, in a video-audio connection from a van parked outside, and they were supposed to access all information about what was being done.
Third, the defences were also given full documentation, including all videos of operations performed at the cottage, so they had full information about what Stefanoni actually did.
Fourth, the defence could access all operation Stefanoni performed at the lab, and they were always summoned.Fifth, the defences were given information about TMB tests directly from Stefanoni. It was Stefanoni who gave them the papers with TMB test results.

Well except for that time when Mignini illegally refused to allow the defendants access to lawyers and meanwhile Stefanoni was running DNA testing on samples she had collected...on oh say Nov 6 or 7th perhaps...where were the defendants representative then?

Yes thank her please for that mop wrapping demonstration...that perfectly captured the level of her work and professionalism.

 

[moije2]

Oh dear...here in the real world we would call Vecchiotti a pathologist. This specialty requires 8 more years study after becoming a regular doctor. And trust me they study plenty of biology and chemistry and anatomy...but sure Stefanoni is more qualified. BTW in the real world a bachelors is 4 year and to add Masters is another 2 years...one can become a pharmacist with a 5 year degree but thats about it. I am sticking with deluxe lab tech...although going by her work example in the video I'm guessing she is only a lab tech assistant and chief mop wrapper at best.

And after the defense of Stefanoni is said and done, it is ironic how the more qualified she is made out to be, the more contradictory it is that she had the lapses she had. "Forgetting" to mention the negative blood tests and so on. It would almost be better if it was argued that she was less trained/educated because then she would have an excuse for her actions and not seem so guilty of failure to disclose and act like a true professional.

 

[RandyN]

Are you talking about themurderofmeredithkercher.com? She actually linked that page as a resource?

Take a look at the very first claim regarding the number of attackers and then at this:



That includes the prosecution forensic experts as well, and he never points out that at Rudy Guede's trial it was in the interest of every involved party to produce 'evidence' and 'suggestions' that there were other people involved, there was no defense of Amanda and Raffaele at that trial to ask impertenant questions of the forensic experts like 'could this have been the result of a single attacker?' Guede himself received a mitigation (lesser sentence) because he was (supposedly) just involved with others and Mignini (at Amanda and Raffaele's trial) even pretended he was 'poor Rudy' being blamed by the other two baduns!

The prosecution still had to come up with 'suggestions' more than one person was involved, but one can tell by the ones they came up with just how lame and limited in scope they are. Few defensive wounds? Gee, I wonder if the man with a knife menacing her was enough to keep her from struggling until it was too late, some people when confronted with a knife tend to do what that person insists because they're afraid they might get hurt if they don't!

Anything from Micheli's trial that didn't survive Massei is because the prosecution couldn't even convince a convicting judge of those dubious contentions when there was an active defense against them and not two sides trying to sluff as much off on someone else as they could.

What's this about the 'clean chest?' in the second entry? She had aspirated blood droplets there suggesting her bra was removed while she was still breathing. Lemme guess, no one brought that up at Rudy's trial like they did in the Massei court, thus that fraudulent conclusion was reached at his trial?

That site is deliberate disinformation, relying on 'conclusions' that were never contested by an active defense and other things that couldn't survive scrutiny, as well as warped and twisted versions of just about everything else. That's just from reading a few entries, is there any good parts to that page? This just goes to show why bunnies must flee any venue they cannot control, this stuff is so easily debunked.

It's sickening.

Haven't you heard about that site...Its main caretaker is Dr...errr former Doctor Brandon Mull...you remember the guy who tried to choke his own doctor to death and is still on probation. I wonder if his probation officer approves of his new hobby? Not important I suppose.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

If someone who believes in guilt wants to lay it out I'm sure it will get debunked by someone here!

If you want to, go to that page I just linked and find a contention that appears damning and post it, there's a number that look like good indications of guilt for someone who doesn't know much about the case, the thing is they're actually more damning of the prosecution case once you realize what they're actually talking about. I didn't see it in a cursory glance, but if you come across anything about 'mixed blood' I know exactly the post I'll link, one that shows precisely how they assembled that contention with a particularly dishonest brand of forensic sophistry. Note that not even Massei could swallow 'mixed blood' either, it's fundamentally dishonest and amounts to little more than the police smearing something with the victim's blood all over someone's sink and when the expected DNA traces of the sink owner show up claim that as 'evidence' they were involved.



Heh, the mop was just a coincidence, they did indeed test it and it was clean and there was little mention of it again until recently. However that and a few other mistakes/coincidences likely led to them being suspicious of Amanda. One was her not telling them about exchanging texts with Patrick the night of the murder, then when confronted by it not remembering it at first. That occurred about a half-hour before Meredith left for home, it must have seemed suspicious at the time, though we now know Patrick's texts had nothing to do with the murder. Another big mistake was not realizing this window (the near one at top) was a lot easier to scale than it looked from that angle. That and the fact that not much was taken caused them to immediately fixate on the idea that the break-in was 'staged' and thus to look closer at the occupants....

Thank you.

Perhaps a better way to ask it is, is there ANYTHING at this point which gives you (being someone who seems quite knowledgeable about the case) pause or doubt about their innocence?