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

[acbytesla]

He's posting at pmf

Rallying the troops??

 

[acbytesla]

I think it's time to take a deep breath and look in the mirror and consider that you, like everyone else is infallible and that it is ok to make mistakes.

Someone isn't.

Excuse me. I know I make mistakes, but I'm confused as to what mistake I made there. You highlighted infallible. So I guess you are pointing out that I made a spelling error with the word infallible. But according to Google, this is the correct spelling. Or are you trying to point out a different mistake?

Just curious.

 

[Grinder]

Excuse me. I know I make mistakes, but I'm confused as to what mistake I made there. You highlighted infallible. So I guess you are pointing out that I made a spelling error with the word infallible. But according to Google, this is the correct spelling. Or are you trying to point out a different mistake?

Just curious.

You misused the word. You meant fallible.

ETA - it really was pretty funny.

 

[Bill Williams]

He's posting at pmf

Rallying the troops??

No.... he posts where he does not get opposition. That's what narcissists do.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli references this article as "proof" that Knox had a 35 year old cocaine dealer lover in Perugia...

http://www.umbria24.it/amante-di-amanda-knox-a-processo-per-spaccio-di-cocaina/15156.html

And that they were in cell phone contact. Like Briars' factoids, curiously none of this makes it into the prosecutions' case (note "plural" prosecutions... Mignini's and now Crini's... that is how iron clad this factoid is.)

The point is, Machiavelli is well on the way to claiming, once again, that Guede was Knox's pimp. At least in the trade of sex for drugs.....

 

[acbytesla]

You misused the word. You meant fallible.

ETA - it really was pretty funny.

doh!!!!!

 

[acbytesla]

Machiavelli references this article as "proof" that Knox had a 35 year old cocaine dealer lover in Perugia...

http://www.umbria24.it/amante-di-amanda-knox-a-processo-per-spaccio-di-cocaina/15156.html

And that they were in cell phone contact. Like Briars' factoids, curiously none of this makes it into the prosecutions' case (note "plural prosecutions... Mignini's and now Crini's... that is how iron clad this factoid is.)

The point is, Machiavelli is well on the way to claiming, once again, that Guede was Knox's pimp. At least in the trade of sex for drugs.....

This is proof?? In the minds of the guilters, this constitutes proof. But interestingly enough, it isn't even proof in any of the wacky courts of Italy.

 

[Supernaut]

Idiots.

IDIOTS!

 

[acbytesla]

Idiots.

IDIOTS!

The truth is that they are over thinking and jumping to conclusions.

 

[Rolfe]

So how did Amanda kill Meredith in such a way that her dead body still had all of her early evening meal in her stomach and none in her duodenum?

Is there any way I can just programme this post to post itself every 24 hours or so until some of these guilters actually address the point?

Rolfe.

 

[Dan O.]

He wasn't using the computer that night as he had stated . It had no human interaction until a brief one after 5:30 am. This plus the phone turned back on early doesn't jive with his alibi that he slept in till 10am .Of course he now claims that he sent emails during the night,so perhaps these lost communications will clear up any discrepency in his account.

What evidence did the postal police find of playing Naruto? What evidence would the postal police have found of an HTTPS connection to gmail? What evidence would the postal police have found if a file were opened and played that evening and then opened again later in the week? How does staying up till 6am not jive with waking at 10 (and wanting to stay in bed for another hour or two)?


Your problem is that you don't understand the nature of the computer evidence or the tools that the postal police were using to investigate. There is plenty of information in Massei and e other documents to see what was being done if you have the background to understand it.

 

[acbytesla]

Is there any way I can just programme this post to post itself every 24 hours or so until some of these guilters actually address the point?

Rolfe.

What Rolfe? You actually expect any of these guys to answer this question? I'd be happy to, but of course I don't have my head in the sand on this.

 

[Grinder]

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Sarah Pearce, a young Idaho woman convicted of savagely beating a motorist in 2003 in what may be a wrongful conviction based on mistaken identity, has a key hearing coming up in February that could win her a new trial.

Christopher Tapp, convicted in 1996 of an Idaho Falls murder in which DNA points to a different perpetrator, has the victim's mother among his advocates seeking to free him and find the real killer.

But the Idaho Innocence Project, which has worked on both cases for at least five years, learned this month that its federal funding won't be renewed. The project, housed at Boise State University, will continue to work on both those cases, but won't take any more.

"We haven't left anybody high and dry, but there are other prisoners writing us, and I'm sending out form letters saying our intake is on hold," said project director Greg Hampikian, a Boise State University professor of biology and criminal justice and a DNA expert. "Every week, I get calls from the mothers."


The Idaho Innocence Project was awarded two multiyear grants from the U.S. Department of Justice's Wrongful Conviction Review Program, in 2009 and 2011, for work to represent people who potentially have been wrongfully convicted. Those grants, totaling nearly $450,000, allowed the hiring of a staff attorney and legal assistants; law students and others also participate. But this year, when the project applied for the next round of grants, 38 groups applied and just eight were accepted. Boise State wasn't among them.

"I'm busy trying to find out where I can get funding," Hampikian said. The project receives some other grants and donations; it gets no state allocations. A portion of its grants go to BSU to cover indirect costs such as use of university office space.

Innocence projects like BSU's started in 1992, when the first Innocence Project formed in New York to tap new DNA technology to determine if prisoners had been wrongly convicted. To date, more than 300 have been freed as a result, many after long terms of wrongful imprisonment.

Hampikian worked with the Georgia Innocence Project before he moved to Idaho, then established the Idaho Innocence Project at BSU in 2005. "We work on cases all over the country, because I'm the only DNA expert that's heading one of these projects," Hampikian said. "Almost all of this is volunteer work."

He's been in the news for his work on the Amanda Knox case, involving the young Washington woman who was convicted, then freed on appeal after four years in prison, for the murder of her roommate while both were exchange students in Italy.

Hampikian has pending patents and has done research work on contamination theories related to DNA; his work led him to conclude that DNA evidence was mishandled in Knox's case and led to a wrongful conviction. He consulted with Knox's defense team and co-wrote a report on the case, but the Italian court didn't allow it to be submitted, relying instead on its own court-appointed DNA experts, who reached similar conclusions.
Hampikian said errors happen in criminal cases. "The fact of the matter is it's a process that will always have a significant degree of error," he said. "I don't think it's that anyone's unjust." It's "human nature," he said, to try to find answers and to right wrongs, and sometimes that process goes awry.

 

[moodstream]

I'm not clear on your post. He could not have said the phones were missing because he should have assumed they were with an alive Meredith. Is the 400 the money in the locked room? An innocent response to was there a theft ?should have been I don't know. Clearly in his rewrite he fabricates a story of the dispatcher's impatience and the grilling over the possible cut on glass as the reason for saying there was no theft. The other stilted part of the calls was RS's reaction to the dispatcher assuming that the intruder had cut himself , the reason for the blood in the bathroom. After the hangup RS explains he doesn't know if the intruder went from the breakin room to the bathroom and mentions the locked door again , and there is a flatemate who is not here he adds.So the dispatcher naturally says so there is blood near or outside this locked door? RS no only in the bathroom.I agree with vibio it was call that sounded like it was reporting a break in, but with no theft.Maybe the cop might not come over in a hurry over especially because the foolish intruder had cut himself and stolen nothing. Not what RS wanted so hangup to make his purpose for calling clearer.

.
I like to simplify things where possible to either/or and if/then statements. Either RS is guilty or innocent. Of course you know he is guilty. What comes with that? He would know the break in was staged, nothing was missing from Filomena’s room, and that both the phones and $400 was stolen. So, if RS tells the police nothing was taken, RS knows he is lying, because of the $400 and the phones. If he wants to maintain a stance of innocence, then it is his intent to lie about this to the police.

In fact, this is what happens:
POLICE:Theft [burglary] in the house eh?RS:No, there's no theft.. they broke the window ... there is a mess ... there is also a closed door ... a mess
2nd call:
POLICE:What did they take? RS: They didn't take anything,

Briars, you have used a fair amount of blog space claiming RS is making a “boo-boo” here - an unwitting act of self-incrimination. How could he know nothing was missing? Therefore he is guilty.

I don’t know how you can see RS's statemet as a mistake. RS says it twice, in two phone calls, and, if guilty, he knows he is lying when he says it. Where is the mistake?

When you say he should have said “I don’t know”, you really mean he had to say that, or implicate himself, if he is guilty. But, only if guilty. If innocent it does not matter. He could have said “I don’t think anything was taken” or “Nothing was taken” and mean the same thing. He could be offering his best guess – nothing was taken. Or he could be repeating what Knox told him.

I don’t think you have offered a reasonable explanation as to why, if RS is innocent, his word choice matters. I do believe you are seeing guilt in his word choice, concluding from your subjective perception that he is guilty, and then using that conclusion to justify your perception of guilt. The basic guilter loop.

The same rule applies about his recollection in Honor Bound. It only matters if he is guilty. However, RS’s recollection, faulty and objectionable as you find it, does not imply guilt. As evidence it does not matter.

When you talk about agreeing with VIBO, are you giving up your earlier stance? Vibio does not seem to find guilt in RS’s no theft remark, only timidity – the goal being getting the police to skedaddle over asap. How this relates to RS/AK’s guilt or innocence I don’t get.

If RS/AK are innocent, naturally they want the police to come right over. But if guilty, perhaps they want the police to come right over to make them appear innocent, but a claim that RS/AK are guilty because they look innocent is not reasonable. I don’t get it.

I am concerned that you are guilt hunting - looking for any explanation that could imply guilt but cannot be disproved. Only then will you have found the truth you are looking for. I hope not.

 

[Dan O.]

I didn't read his book. Did he say he sent emails or did he say he wrote them? He had dial-up and back in the day of dial up I sometimes wrote emails off-line and sent them in a batch. It is certainly possible that with his girl friend sleeping he might not have wanted to wake to that lovely noise of modems connecting.

Would the police frying the computers destroy that sort of use history?

No Grinder. We're only talking about late 2007, not the stone age. You can read in Massei that Raffaele's computer was continuously connected to the Internet that night. Having a landline, he undoubtably had DSL.

A gmail account or a private webmail access at the university would be invisible to the limited testing that the postals did.

 

[Grinder]

No Grinder. We're only talking about late 2007, not the stone age. You can read in Massei that Raffaele's computer was continuously connected to the Internet that night. Having a landline, he undoubtably had DSL.

A gmail account or a private webmail access at the university would be invisible to the limited testing that the postals did.

2013 -

Marion Watson, a retired University of Minnesota staffer on a fixed income, says she "counts both sides of every penny," and is happy to do without the high-speed Internet most Minnesotans take for granted.

She has used a dial-up Internet connection -- the kind that requires dialing a phone number and achieving comparatively poky speeds -- since 1992.

Watson sees no reason to upgrade. She goes online mainly for email via her University of Minnesota account, so the classic system for accessing the Internet is all she needs.

And if a mail attachment is taking a long time to download? "Then I go away, and I come back later," the 92-year-old St. Paul resident said. "It will be there. I am not throwing money down a rathole."

Watson is among a small but significant percentage of U.S. adults clinging to dial-up, even as broadband becomes ubiquitous and Internet files become increasingly data-heavy and complex.

Did you ever acknowledge that your link to break-in reporting substantiated what I have been saying and that the report was that apparently nothing was stolen.

 

[acbytesla]

No Grinder. We're only talking about late 2007, not the stone age. You can read in Massei that Raffaele's computer was continuously connected to the Internet that night. Having a landline, he undoubtably had DSL.

A gmail account or a private webmail access at the university would be invisible to the limited testing that the postals did.

What? They didn't look at the browsing history? Those are time and date stamped. But it only shows when you entered a page. You could be composing an email for hours and it is only going to show when you opened the page.

 

[Dan O.]

But it should make you question whether it is beyond a reasonable doubt - and most Italians kiss hello/goodbye

Here are a few more
Raffaele is drinking out a glass - Meredith picks up glass to wash
Meredith's clothes are drying in the flat - Raffaele touches them
Raffaele uses their bathroom, rinses mouth and spits in sink - Meredith touches sink
Raffaele uses towels in their bathroom - Meredith uses towels

There are so many possible ways to transfer DNA if two people have spent time in the same place.

How about Raffaele running his fingers over the strings of the drying rack earlier in the week and Meredith places her freshly cleaned laundry on that rack and catches the hook on one of those strings.

There is no time stamp in DNA itself to say when it was deposited. The ISC has said that the DNA transfer must be proven. So far the prosecution hasn't even come up with a plausible transfer mechanism so they can't even begin to talk about proving it.

The deformed hooks on the clasp and the torn stitches show that the bra was ripped off (not cut with a knife). Blood splatter on her brests shows that the bra came off when she was choking on blood from the deep wound. DNA on the band shows that Rudy grabbed the bra where a strong pull would cause it to unstitch as it did. By ripping off the bra, Rudy causes the clasp to fall to the floor without being touched. Blood on the inside door handle is a strong indication that Rudy was alone with Meredith when she was killed.

We may not know how Raffaele's DNA could have ended up on that clasp. But the above evidence tells is when it didn't.

 

[Bill Williams]

How about Raffaele running his fingers over the strings of the drying rack earlier in the week and Meredith places her freshly cleaned laundry on that rack and catches the hook on one of those strings.

There is no time stamp in DNA itself to say when it was deposited. The ISC has said that the DNA transfer must be proven. So far the prosecution hasn't even come up with a plausible transfer mechanism so they can't even begin to talk about proving it.

The one thing I wish either Briars or Machiavelli would deal with is Massei's reasoning reflected in the highlighted portion above.

In Judge Massei's 2010 motivations report to explain the 2009 conviction, Massei defends the non-testing of the presumed-semen stain on the pillow, a choice Stefanoni made (in not testing it) which Massei concurs with.

The reason? Well, not because he didn't suspect it may have been semen. But his reasoning is that even if semen, then the DNA within is not timestamped, and he says that Meredith had an active sex-life.

Incredibly, with that reasoning already on the record, as a reason not to find out who the semen belonged to, he forgets about DNA not having time-stamps....

.... in relation to ANY "biological material" of Amanda's found in the cottage... all of which was found outside of Meredith's room... and most of the so-called "damning" DNA found in the bathroom mixed with Meredith's blood.

Yes, the bathroom which she shared with Meredith, and which she used as late as 3 hours before the horrid discovery. This is even neglecting to mention the wide collection swaths Stefanoni used in that room....

Apparently DNA does have a time-stamp on it if your confirmation bias is guilty...

Briars and Machiavelli never address this at all. They simply ignore it, and move on with their next collection of factoids.

 

[Kaosium]

The prosecution has always maintained that Rudy lies. That fact doesn't change the bigger lies and news lies by the other two defendants. It was a group crime.

No, Briars, it wasn't a group crime. They just arrested three people on evidence that turned out to be entirely bogus. That calls into question their competence and integrity, it doesn't serve as any proof that there were multiple people involved in the murder, just that they jumped to that unlikely conclusion on bogus evidence.

Even the prosecution experts had to admit there's nothing about the murder from the standpoint of forensic science that requires more than one attacker:

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.