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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Diocletus said:
Machiavelli does have a point. I have never seen a photo of Knox in her honors garments.<snip>
Click to expand...

Every quarter, the kids with good grades get to wear red, white and blue striped sashes. There aren't that many pictures because it's so commonplace.
 
Diocletus said:
That's interesting, because I was thinking that it is credible, plausible and compatible with the known facts that Napoleoni and her cops planted the DNA on the clasp. For example, Napoleoni's cops are known to engage in illegal behavior. Napoleoni and her cops had exclusive custody and access to the cottage on November 6 and 7 (and it appears, sometime afterwards), and as far as I can tell, they should not have been in there because arrests had been made and the defendants had a right to be present. They had a reason to plant the DNA, because they needed the evidence, because the wiretaps told them that the shoes were no good. The clasp is known to have moved. So many compatible facts.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but the video of the evidence collection showed them behaving very much like they knew what the significance of the item would be before it had been tested.

Answer me this, Machiavelli: what are they talking about as they pass the clasp from hand to hand, shine a flashlight on it and point their fingers at it?

"Look, I can see Sollecito's DNA on it right there."​
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
Every quarter, the kids with good grades get to wear red, white and blue striped sashes. There aren't that many pictures because it's so commonplace.
Click to expand...

Hm. Never heard of it being done that way. As far as I recall, you would show up at graduation your diploma would say magna/summa/cum laude. I don't even recall that we had special sashes at graduation. Nothing between marking periods.
 
lionking said:
My observation, after spending two months in Italy this year, is that I talked to many Italians about this topic. From taxi drivers to professors. I didn't find one who thought Amanda (am I allowed to use her first name?) innocent.

As the trial is in Italy, I think this is significant.

On topic enough for you?
Click to expand...

This is one where mileage definitely varies.

A friend rented a villa last summer near Perugia. It was only when he got there did he put 2 + 2 together that this was the place I go on and on about back home. He really couldn't care less.

But when in town he'd ask. He reported that mostly people didn't want to talk about it. Those few who had strong opinions about guilt usually saw it also as a national pride thing. Others would say she was probably innocent but should never have come.
 
Diocletus said:
Hm. Never heard of it being done that way. As far as I recall, you would show up at graduation your diploma would say magna/summa/cum laude. I don't even recall that we had special sashes at graduation. Nothing between marking periods.
Click to expand...

Don't tell me I was able to kid a kidder.

The UW started the custom as soon as Seattle became Perugia's sister city (and saw how the Italian judges dress in the courtroom).
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
Don't tell me I was able to kid a kidder.

The UW started the custom as soon as Seattle became Perugia's sister city (and saw how the Italian judges dress in the courtroom).
Click to expand...

LOL, you got me.

Did I mention our honors undergarments, though?
 
Diocletus said:
Hm. Never heard of it being done that way. As far as I recall, you would show up at graduation your diploma would say magna/summa/cum laude. I don't even recall that we had special sashes at graduation. Nothing between marking periods.
Click to expand...

At my graduation, they simply put the grade of the degree on the cetificate. I don't know anyone who has ever received their degree with a 'cum laude' honorific on their certificate, even those that graduated top of their cohort.

Everyone wore the colours of their 'school', even those on FSc's, Dip, Cert, BSc/BA (ordinary) PGCE etc regardless of actual grade. Double checking, it appears the Fundation graduates wore the Oxford rather than Aberdeen hood.

And that's it. No honours sash at all.
 
lionking said:
My observation, after spending two months in Italy this year, is that I talked to many Italians about this topic. From taxi drivers to professors. I didn't find one who thought Amanda (am I allowed to use her first name?) innocent.

As the trial is in Italy, I think this is significant.

On topic enough for you?
Click to expand...


By the way, I remembered that you'd posted lavishly on your trip to Europe, and upon checking, it appears that you might have visited Italy for a sum total of around three weeks maximum. Am I confused, or did you do the rest of this "two month" stay in Italy at some other time this year?

Obviously, this would potentially impact the idea of the "many" Italians you claim to have talked with about the Knox case. And you were on a guided tour with almost-exclusively non-Italians, weren't you? Wouldn't that have meant that you weren't exposed to all that many Italians in extended conversational environments anyhow?

So, just for clarification, how many Italians did you discuss the Knox/Sollecito case with? And please correct me if I'm wrong on dates, and that you actually did spend "two months in Italy this year".

I see also that you had a lovely dinner in London with a few other JREF members, whom you've helpfully named in the photo caption. What a nice occasion it must have been :)
 
Last edited:
Antony said:
Not only that, but the video of the evidence collection showed them behaving very much like they knew what the significance of the item would be before it had been tested.

Answer me this, Machiavelli: what are they talking about as they pass the clasp from hand to hand, shine a flashlight on it and point their fingers at it?

"Look, I can see Sollecito's DNA on it right there."​
Click to expand...

Why not? Even Knox with her magic lamp was able to remove both her's and Raffaele's DNA from Meredith's room, all the while leaving Rudy's trace intact.

If an honours student in the humanities from Washington State can do it with a desk lamp, you'd think a trained Dr. in DNA analysis like Stefanoni could see it in her sleep. O wait, she did!
 
LondonJohn said:
Yep! I spent several months in Italy this year, and attended the SC sessions and the Appeal Court sessions to date.

Oh wait. No I didn't. That would be a lie and an attempt to mislead,wouldn't it?.......
Click to expand...
Relevance to the discussion or case even?
 
Bill Williams said:
Why not? Even Knox with her magic lamp was able to remove both her's and Raffaele's DNA from Meredith's room, all the while leaving Rudy's trace intact.

If an honours student in the humanities from Washington State can do it with a desk lamp, you'd think a trained Dr. in DNA analysis like Stefanoni could see it in her sleep. O wait, she did!
Click to expand...


It simply beggars belief that people calling themselves forensics crime-scene investigators could treat the bra clasp - something that was so blatantly obviously a potentially-critical piece of evidence - in such a cavalier, incompetent and inappropriate fashion. What makes it even worse still (in my opinion) is that they actually play to the camera in the midst of all the handing around: they are not only fully-aware that they're being videoed, they also appear proud enough of their working practices to mug for the camera!

It wearily bears repeating that the correct - and ONLY - protocol, once they had discovered the bra clasp, would have been to photograph it in situ, then for one of the team to pick it up carefully with sterile tweezers and place it directly into a sterile evidence bag/envelope.

But then again, we're talking here about the incompetent idiots who also left Meredith's blood-soaked jacket in the room (where it was later discovered stuffed into a basket of dirty laundry); who left the socks and shoes Meredith had been wearing, who left the handbag (purse) Meredith had been using; who left the potentially-crucial blood-soaked towels from inside Meredith's room in a wet pile such that they moulded and became useless for evidential purposes; who chose to wrap a potentially-significant mop from inside the cottage with gift-wrap paper that also came from inside the cottage..........................................................
 
Bill Williams said:
Why not? Even Knox with her magic lamp was able to remove both her's and Raffaele's DNA from Meredith's room, all the while leaving Rudy's trace intact.

If an honours student in the humanities from Washington State can do it with a desk lamp, you'd think a trained Dr. in DNA analysis like Stefanoni could see it in her sleep. O wait, she did!
Click to expand...

LondonJohn said:
It simply beggars belief that people calling themselves forensics crime-scene investigators could treat the bra clasp - something that was so blatantly obviously a potentially-critical piece of evidence - in such a cavalier, incompetent and inappropriate fashion. What makes it even worse still (in my opinion) is that they actually play to the camera in the midst of all the handing around: they are not only fully-aware that they're being videoed, they also appear proud enough of their working practices to mug for the camera!

It wearily bears repeating that the correct - and ONLY - protocol, once they had discovered the bra clasp, would have been to photograph it in situ, then for one of the team to pick it up carefully with sterile tweezers and place it directly into a sterile evidence bag/envelope.

But then again, we're talking here about the incompetent idiots who also left Meredith's blood-soaked jacket in the room (where it was later discovered stuffed into a basket of dirty laundry); who left the socks and shoes Meredith had been wearing, who left the handbag (purse) Meredith had been using; who left the potentially-crucial blood-soaked towels from inside Meredith's room in a wet pile such that they moulded and became useless for evidential purposes; who chose to wrap a potentially-significant mop from inside the cottage with gift-wrap paper that also came from inside the cottage..........................................................
Click to expand...

Surely, then, this speaks against a purposeful framing. But wait, doesn't this speak to a very clumsy and very purposeful framing?

Pointing to the video of the bra-clasp collection to try to prove one or the other is useless, really, because it can be used to point to incompetence, or contamination - but purposeful framing? Did they not know it would be played in court?

And look what happened in court.... at cross examination Stefanoni was asked to walk the court through what they were seeing as it was played. Stefanoni was asked if her glove was not obviously contaminated, judging from its colour in the video. Her answer was that she remembered just changing her glove before collecting the clasp. (Don't they record when they change gloves, just for the record? And if she did change gloves, it becomes evident that she changed back into a glove which had formerly been used for some dirty task!!!)

Then at one point the metal hook disappears behind her hand in a close-up. She's asked if she'd touched the hook right then, right there: the court could not see.

Incredibly, she can neither confirm nor deny that she'd touched it with an obviously dirty glove.

The only remaining question: why is that bra-clasp still in front of the court? We can gaffaw all we want about Stefanoni, but why is that clasp still in front of the court?

Wait a minute, it isn't. The physical clasp itself has long since rusted away due to improper storage. (!)

Luckily Stefanoni did a better job with the knife DNA traces. At last they are still here. The RIS Carabinieri have now also ruled out the knife as the murder weapon.

Why did the Florence court get convened by the ISC? Apparently there is no evidence, but there still is this lingering osmotic, behind the scenes suspicion that they still might be guilty.

If the Nencini courts convicts, then this really was decided over wine and pasta in the evenings between unknowns.
 
Last edited:
Skind said:
At my graduation, they simply put the grade of the degree on the cetificate. I don't know anyone who has ever received their degree with a 'cum laude' honorific on their certificate, even those that graduated top of their cohort.

Everyone wore the colours of their 'school', even those on FSc's, Dip, Cert, BSc/BA (ordinary) PGCE etc regardless of actual grade. Double checking, it appears the Fundation graduates wore the Oxford rather than Aberdeen hood.

And that's it. No honours sash at all.
Click to expand...


I'm a little confused about the "honors" discussion to be honest.

Knox was an undergraduate at UW at the time she travelled to Perugia to study, right?

So any "honors" appellation applying to Knox would be in regard to her high school graduation? Is that right?

(I ask because it's unknown and unheard-of for the term "honors" (or "honours") to be used in the UK in regard to anything other than university graduation).

If all the above is correct, then the "honors" discussion is strictly in relation to Knox's high-school history, rather than her university studies (right?).

And I thought it was pretty well-known (and confirmed) that Knox had made the "Dean's List" at UW for the quality of her studies and her general demeanour. In other words, in the period preceding her trip to Italy, Knox appears to have distinguished herself academically and as a student in general.

I have no idea whether or not Knox graduated from her high school with "honors". But I would suggest that her recognition at UW would be more relevant anyhow, since it was directly before her trip to Italy, and was obviously far more indicative of the sort of person Knox was as a university student (people often change significantly between school and university, for example).
 
Bill Williams said:
And look what happened in court.... at cross examination Stefanoni was asked to walk the court through what they were seeing as it was played. Stefanoni was asked if her glove was not obviously contaminated, judging from its colour in the video. Her answer was that she remembered just changing her glove before collecting the clasp. (Don't they record when they change gloves, just for the record? And if she did change gloves, it becomes evident that she changed back into a glove which had formerly been used for some dirty task!!!)

Then at one point the metal hook disappears behind her hand in a close-up. She's asked if she'd touched the hook right then, right there: the court could not see.

Incredibly, she can neither confirm nor deny that she'd touched it with an obviously dirty glove.
Click to expand...


I'd suggest that these sorts of answers are the coached and pre-determined responses of someone who knows not to provide anything that can be positively contradicted at a later date. It's why dissemblers in court almost always say they "do not remember" saying something, rather than saying "I didn't say that", or even "I don't think I sad that". It means that if it is subsequently proven that they did say it, they can argue along the lines of "Oh well, that's my leaky memory for you! Perhaps I DO remember saying it now!"


The only remaining question: why is that bra-clasp still in front of the court? We can gaffaw all we want about Stefanoni, but why is that clasp still in front of the court?

Wait a minute, it isn't. The physical clasp itself has long since rusted away due to improper storage. (!)
Click to expand...


It's proper that the clasp is still before the court as evidence. But if the defence are at all good at their jobs, they will use powerful evidence to argue that it's worthless as evidence against Sollecito (and, by extension, Knox). The fact that the "crack" forensics team, under the direction of one Ms Patrizia Stefanoni, stored the bra clasp so disgracefully inappropriately that it rotted/rusted and is now useless for analysis will be an arguing point in itself. But obviously the main thrust of the defence arguments about the clasp should be around its original identification, handling, collection, storage and testing. Frankly, they should have little trouble convincing the court that it's utterly unreliable and non-credible evidence; if they fail to do so, I will consider the defence teams themselves to be at fault.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom