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

[acbytesla]

I can tell you with a high degree of confidence that everything from the Hellmann trial (along with everything from the Massei trial and the pre-trial hearings) will be admitted as evidence in the new appeal trial.

Given the insanity of what we have seen leading up to this moment, how can you be confident of anything??

 

[snook1]

delete

 

[snook1]

Nothing is being thrown out from the Hellmann court.

Loud and clear.
Ok, thank you. I'll leave you alone now.

 

[Grinder]

I wish we had some Italian law expert (is Macchiavelli one?) that could help with these latest questions and could answer if the legal documents from Hellmann's trial are accepted as evidence in this new appeal, especially C&V. It has been said many times so far that it stands in Florence, but it would be nice if we could get some kind of official confirmation, if that's even possible, as I realize it's not something with a ready answer. The SC's opinion about C&V wasn't exactly the best, as I've just read on PMF (didn't bother to read the whole SC's ruling). I ask because amongst PGP and us people are having different opinions about it.

Not just the C&V but also the testimony of Curatolo. Hellmann et al. laughed him out of court.

What about the viewing of the ICSI collection videos?

How can the new court fully appreciate Hellmann's conclusions without replaying his trial?

 

[acbytesla]

Not just the C&V but also the testimony of Curatolo. Hellmann et al. laughed him out of court.

What about the viewing of the ICSI collection videos?

How can the new court fully appreciate Hellmann's conclusions without replaying his trial?

True, but it sure doesn't seem like they are replaying that trial. It seems like a cursory examination at best. OTOH, I wonder what the judges are looking at outside of the public view.

 

[Grinder]

Well, watch again from 19:40 on.

It is exactly as I described it. The climber never let's go of the sill, lowers his feet to the top of the lower window and demonstrates that from that position he can easily open and shut the shutters. He doesn't climb from the ground with the shutters closed to demonstrate how easy it would be to spring up to the window with the shutters closed.

It's perfectly plausible to you that he "waited to see if anybody heard" and then 'talked himself in' when someone come instead of abandoning the plan of burglary? It seems a bit stretched.

Very reasonable point. It would be possible that he was seen by Meredith down below near the boys' door and he, being caught, said he needed to use a toilet and she let him in.

Even if the favorite theory here is true it is still difficult to believe he took the actions to murder. I'm not saying it is impossible but really there is no scenario that makes sense. Getting caught breaking in isn't even close to a good reason to kill, especially if the grand conspiracy includes Rudy having a get out of jail card.

 

[acbytesla]

It is exactly as I described it. The climber never let's go of the sill, lowers his feet to the top of the lower window and demonstrates that from that position he can easily open and shut the shutters. He doesn't climb from the ground with the shutters closed to demonstrate how easy it would be to spring up to the window with the shutters closed.




Very reasonable point. It would be possible that he was seen by Meredith down below near the boys' door and he, being caught, said he needed to use a toilet and she let him in.

Even if the favorite theory here is true it is still difficult to believe he took the actions to murder. I'm not saying it is impossible but really there is no scenario that makes sense. Getting caught breaking in isn't even close to a good reason to kill, especially if the grand conspiracy includes Rudy having a get out of jail card.

It took the climber less than 10 seconds to go from the ground to sitting on the window sill and the climber said it would be easy for anyone athletic. He demonstrates in seconds how easy it would be to open and close the shutters. Finally, do you really think he had to leave obvious marks on the wall doing that??

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

While I have always thought the knife was at the very best mishandled and therefore out, what would your conclusion be if legitimate DNA of Rudy were found on the knife?

At this point I would assume it was the result of mishandling or deliberate tampering with evidence.

If by "legitimate" you are hypothesizing real, compelling evidence that linked this kitchen knife to the murder, my reaction would be the same as if National Geographic found a tribe of bigfoots in the North Cascades. It would rock my world. But so far, today is just another Sunday.

She is quite an accomplished journalist both in print and electronic.

Perhaps Candace was lucky to be under the influence of the FOA and not in Perugia for extended lengths of time.

Bah. Candace is under the influence of a sharp, independent mind. She formed her own opinion long before FOA even existed.

It is a shame that she feels the need to make stuff up like the starch and use hyperbolic terms in her reporting blogging.

C&V found starch granules, rather than blood or human tissue, on the knife blade. That suggests it had been used to prepare food rather than commit murder. That is the big picture, and nobody made it up.

If Candace doesn't appeal to you because of "hyperbolic terms" or for any other reason, don't read her blog. Don't buy her book. Nobody is asking you to be a Candace Dempsey fan. Your petulance and nit-picking says more about you than it does about her.

 

[Grinder]

It took the climber less than 10 seconds to go from the ground to sitting on the window sill and the climber said it would be easy for anyone athletic. He demonstrates in seconds how easy it would be to open and close the shutters. Finally, do you really think he had to leave obvious marks on the wall doing that??

Tesla I believe that if Rudy climbed into that window he wouldn't have used the technique a highly skilled rock climber used. I believe he would have climbed it in a similar way that the lawyer did.

It is a shame that the TV show didn't use someone similar to Rudy, a 5' 10", 20 YO, semi-pro basketball player. The rock climber undoubtedly had practiced the move as they actually didn't just walk up to the cottage as the set-up made it look.

It would have been more interesting had the shutters been closed in the way Filomena claimed she had left them, which would have left even less sill to grab.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla I believe that if Rudy climbed into that window he wouldn't have used the technique a highly skilled rock climber used. I believe he would have climbed it in a similar way that the lawyer did.

It is a shame that the TV show didn't use someone similar to Rudy, a 5' 10", 20 YO, semi-pro basketball player. The rock climber undoubtedly had practiced the move as they actually didn't just walk up to the cottage as the set-up made it look.

It would have been more interesting had the shutters been closed in the way Filomena claimed she had left them, which would have left even less sill to grab.

You can believe anything you choose, but I didn't see any extra unique rock climbing skills by the climber. I'll concede it might have taken Rudy 20 or 30 seconds to accomplish the same thing. The only thing we really don't know is how strong Rudy's hands are as that is the real key differentiator that we can never know. I have a close friend who is rock climber and his hands and fingers are incredibly strong. But with Rudy's build and athleticism, I ABSOLUTELY don't believe that it would be difficult.

 

[Grinder]

At this point I would assume it was the result of mishandling or deliberate tampering with evidence.

If by "legitimate" you are hypothesizing real, compelling evidence that linked this kitchen knife to the murder, my reaction would be the same as if National Geographic found a tribe of bigfoots in the North Cascades. It would rock my world. But so far, today is just another Sunday.

If Rudy's DNA was found on the knife from the sample found by C&V it would have been damning as Vogt stated, not withstanding your issues with bigfoot.

Bah. Candace is under the influence of a sharp, independent mind. She formed her own opinion long before FOA even existed.

How do you know when she formed her opinion and when FOA was formed? Curt went to Marriott within days. Candace was pitching her book by Feb 2008. Given she was a lowly blogger in Seattle with limited Italian skills what do you think she sold Penguin?

C&V found starch granules, rather than blood or human tissue, on the knife blade. That suggests it had been used to prepare food rather than commit murder. That is the big picture, and nobody made it up.

You can twist it all you want but the DNA sample of Meredith was never found to be starch. It is a significant error or propaganda statement. The fact that there was starch on a bread knife means less than nothing. The knife could have been cleaned completely and then used to cut something starched based.

If Candace doesn't appeal to you because of "hyperbolic terms" or for any other reason, don't read her blog. Don't buy her book. Nobody is asking you to be a Candace Dempsey fan. Your petulance and nit-picking says more about you than it does about her.

Her misreporting a major point says more about her. Your stubborn refusal to just acknowledge that it is a serious mischaracterization of what happened says a lot about you.

Chris - the copy remains the same I just went to it and refreshed - In the last trial, a speck the police claimed was the victim’s DNA turned out to be starch. Independent experts won’t test the knife this time
Although I don't think the "I was there" statement is what the PGP think it means, clearly that is not as obviously wrong as Candace saying the DNA was starch.

 

[Grinder]

You can believe anything you choose, but I didn't see any extra unique rock climbing skills by the climber. I'll concede it might have taken Rudy 20 or 30 seconds to accomplish the same thing. The only thing we really don't know is how strong Rudy's hands are as that is the real key differentiator that we can never know. I have a close friend who is rock climber and his hands and fingers are incredibly strong. But with Rudy's build and athleticism, I ABSOLUTELY don't believe that it would be difficult.

I truly can't believe that people think that Rudy would have made the squat to full extension move and reached the window. Where he grabs the sill there would be no sill if the shutters were closed as described by Filomena - stuck shut meaning they didn't close so were not as shown when close on the show. The sill would have only had a tiny space by the hinges.

Why do you think that they used a rock climber and not a basketball player? They wanted it to look as easy as possible.

 

[acbytesla]

If Rudy's DNA was found on the knife from the sample found by C&V it would have been damning as Vogt stated, not withstanding your issues with bigfoot.



How do you know when she formed her opinion and when FOA was formed? Curt went to Marriott within days. Candace was pitching her book by Feb 2008. Given she was a lowly blogger in Seattle with limited Italian skills what do you think she sold Penguin?



You can twist it all you want but the DNA sample of Meredith was never found to be starch. It is a significant error or propaganda statement. The fact that there was starch on a bread knife means less than nothing. The knife could have been cleaned completely and then used to cut something starched based.



Her misreporting a major point says more about her. Your stubborn refusal to just acknowledge that it is a serious mischaracterization of what happened says a lot about you.

Chris - the copy remains the same I just went to it and refreshed - In the last trial, a speck the police claimed was the victim’s DNA turned out to be starch. Independent experts won’t test the knife this time
Although I don't think the "I was there" statement is what the PGP think it means, clearly that is not as obviously wrong as Candace saying the DNA was starch.

A MAJOR POINT??? Surely ye jest. Whether or not there was starch is MEANINGLESS!!!!

 

[Grinder]

Snook - I too would like to see a credible source of what will part of this appeal. I would like to see Mach comment or an Italian publication detailing the law.

Does the defense enter what they want into the record? Does the assessment by Hellmann about Curatolo remain or will this court play the video of his testimony if they had the funds to make one?

Is this and was the last appeal a true trial de novo?

 

[Samson]

Ron Hendry highlights a scuff mark in his break in analysis on the timber frame of the lower window. Normal weathering would extinguish this if it was not very recent. The rock climber places his foot at the same mark. Hendry explains the shards on the window sill as being stacked during the entry. This answers all the Massei conjectures. I note you suggest that the window was broken before the murder, but ascribe only reasonable doubt to the involvement of AK and RS. The central plank for the prosecution is that the murder happened before the window was broken.

 

[Dan O.]

It is a shame that the TV show didn't use someone similar to Rudy, a 5' 10", 20 YO, semi-pro basketball player. The rock climber undoubtedly had practiced the move as they actually didn't just walk up to the cottage as the set-up made it look.

Finding a 178cm 20 something semi-pro criminal willing to perform for the camera is bound to be problematic.

It would have been more interesting had the shutters been closed in the way Filomena claimed she had left them, which would have left even less sill to grab.

And how much sill do you think is required to grab in order to open those shutters? Do you even have a clue how wide it was and how far it protruded from the house?

 

[Grinder]

A MAJOR POINT??? Surely ye jest. Whether or not there was starch is MEANINGLESS!!!!

Are you understanding that Candace is claiming, as of two weeks ago, that MEREDITH"S DNA was found to be starch. The DNA on the knife was the key piece of evidence in the whole trial. If the independent experts had looked at the sample and determined that it was STARCH that would have been HUGE. What they did say was that the analysis was questionable and that the protocols needed weren't followed therefore contamination couldn't be ruled out. Do see you the night and day difference between that and declaring it was starch?

Starch on the knife is meaningless as I stated before as it could have been left on the knife on the 5th of Nov.

 

[Grinder]

Finding a 178cm 20 something semi-pro criminal willing to perform for the camera is bound to be problematic.

I wonder who was going to bring cat burglar into it

And how much sill do you think is required to grab in order to open those shutters? Do you even have a clue how wide it was and how far it protruded from the house?

I'm sure used some Photoshop analytics and can tell me but I can see the sliver after the shutters are closed on the video and since with the shutters jammed and not completely closed I know there would be less sill to grab.

I would guess that Rudy would have had an inch or inch and half if the shutters were closed as F described.

 

[LondonJohn]

You can twist it all you want but the DNA sample of Meredith was never found to be starch. It is a significant error or propaganda statement. The fact that there was starch on a bread knife means less than nothing. The knife could have been cleaned completely and then used to cut something starched based.

Her misreporting a major point says more about her. Your stubborn refusal to just acknowledge that it is a serious mischaracterization of what happened says a lot about you.

Chris - the copy remains the same I just went to it and refreshed - In the last trial, a speck the police claimed was the victim’s DNA turned out to be starch. Independent experts won’t test the knife this time
Although I don't think the "I was there" statement is what the PGP think it means, clearly that is not as obviously wrong as Candace saying the DNA was starch.

Ahhh..... I think I may see where the confusion lies here. And I think that you and Dempsey are both correct and both incorrect, for differing reasons!

Let me try to explain what I mean:

1) In late 2007, Stefanoni took seven different swabbed samples from the knife, which she labelled 36A-G.

2) On 36I - a swab taken from a specific speck on the blade of the knife - she claims she found Meredith's DNA (although of course nobody's yet seen the source data to enable a proper assessment of this result, but that's another matter).

3) When Vecchiotti was given the knife to re-examine in 2011 (or late 2010), she did not use the swabs taken by Stefanoni back in 2007. Instead, she re-swabbed in exactly the same areas as the original 36A-G swabs had been taken.

4) Vecchiotti labelled these new swabs to directly correspond with those taken by Stefanoni. In other words, Vecchiotti's swab 36I corresponded to Stefanoni's 36I in that it came from exactly the same spot on the knife blade - but it was not the same swab.

5) At the same time, Vecchiotti took two additional swabs where the blade meets the handle, which she labelled 36H and 36I.

So.... when Vechiotti tested her 36I, she was NOT retesting Stefanoni's original 36I swab, but was in fact testing a new swab taken from exactly the same place as Stefanoni's original 36I swab had been taken. Vecchiotti's 36I swab contained no DNA or other biological material - it only contained starch molecules.

Therefore, what Vecchiotti was saying was as follows: "I tested the knife in exactly the same place as Stefanoni alleges she found Meredith's DNA, and I found no human DNA at that spot but instead I only found starch."

Vecchiotti is NOT saying: "I retested Stefanoni's original 36I swab, and found no human DNA but instead only starch".

With all that in mind, let's revisit what Dempsey wrote:

In the last trial, a speck the police claimed was the victim’s DNA turned out to be starch.

Now, this is correct in as much as Vecchiotti swabbed at exactly the same spot - this small speck on the blade - and found no human DNA but only starch. But it doesn't technically mean automatically that Stefanoni's original 36I swab also must have contained no human DNA but only starch.

So, as I say, Dempsey is somewhat imprecise in her writing, and has implied a false conclusion in my opinion (that Stefanoni definitely couldn't have found Meredith's DNA on that spot on the knife, since it was actually only starch). But she IS partially correct.

(Incidentally, Vechiotti could - and perhaps should - have avoided much confusion by giving her swabs slightly different labels. For example, her swab from that speck on the knife could have been labelled 36I(V), so as to distinguish it as the swab Vecchiotti took as opposed to the original 36I swab that Stefanoni took from the same location.)

 

[Grinder]

Ron Hendry highlights a scuff mark in his break in analysis on the timber frame of the lower window. Normal weathering would extinguish this if it was not very recent. The rock climber places his foot at the same mark. Hendry explains the shards on the window sill as being stacked during the entry. This answers all the Massei conjectures. I note you suggest that the window was broken before the murder, but ascribe only reasonable doubt to the involvement of AK and RS. The central plank for the prosecution is that the murder happened before the window was broken.

Welcome Sampson

Hardly the central plank. I say that reasonable doubt can't be challenged. I say that they didn't need to prove their innocence and that proving that would be nearly impossible without a verifiable alibi.