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

[RoseMontague]

Rose do you have a complete or at least a fuller account of what the defense did this week? I saw AV's, but it seems from that they only spoke for a short time. I thought the prosecution took more than one court day.

The best is La Nazione, both on twitter and in their articles. Right now the next hearing is on 9 January. Frank has given some updates that are pretty good as well but they are of course from an innocent POV. Honestly, two bad signs that I saw were Nencini's comments about Amanda not being there and the fact that the Kercher's hired yet another lawyer in addition to the ones they had. On a positive note, at least her e-mail letter was allowed to be read by the court.

 

[Bill Williams]

I point out that - what I think the evidence shows - is that there was no real "murderous fight". There was no real fight: Meredith was immobilized almost completely by the overwhelming force of multiple individuals.
The immobilization of the victim is one of the most striking and disturbing elements that the physical/autopsy evidence shows, imho.

There was no fight - we can agree on that. But Meredith was not immobilised by multiple attackers; she was immobilised by fear because a bigger, stronger, male intruder was holding a knife to her throat.

Is there anything about that that's difficult to understand?

Here lies the case in a nutshell. There is actually nothing to support Machiavelli's opinion, certainly not to elevate it above other possible scenarios.

What is conclusive here is that there is no forensic presence of any other individual in that room attacking Meredith.

Therefore the scenarios which suggest that the victim was immobilized through intimidation, or perhaps even a quick attack are to be preferred.

Again, it's the reason why Machiavelli refuses to put together of comprehensive timeline of what happened based on the evidence. He has to ignore the lack of forensics pointing to more than one attacker, to posit more than one attacker.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's actualy one reason more to think that he may have hung out with Amanda as well,
and that it was unlikely that he had any urge to assail and rape Meredith.

What is strange to me is the number of time guilters have to argue against Judge Massei's scenario, as found in Massei's motivations report. This is something I noticed early on, and was a strong element which pushed me in the innocence camp.

Guilters simply cannot, it seems, put forward a comprehensive theory of this which explains the evidence, even among themselves.

A motive, therefore, of an erotic, sexually violent nature which, arising from the choice of evil made by Rudy, found active collaboration from Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

It's been 6 years, and they still are reinventing this case to try to shoe-horn in two innocents. Witness the new "pooh" motive....

 

[el buscador]

Ok but there is Sollecito's DNA on the metal clasp. And there is no Guede's DNA near it.

No no the clasp was not crushed, it was opened with force. The hooks were opened not crushed. And it had benn also photographed immediately.

I point out that - what I think the evidence shows - s that there was no real "murderous fight". There was no real fight: Meredith was immobilized almost completely by the overwhelming force of multiple individuals.
The immobilization of the victim is one of the most striking and disturbing elements that the physical/autopsy evidence shows, imho.

What were the clumps of Meredith's hair doing around the room if there was no fight? One way rudy controlled Meredith is by yanking her around by her long hair, pulling out clumps with every yank. Ever had your body jerked around by someone yanking your hair backward or from side to side? It hurts and can leave you pretty helpless. Also, rudy's DNA was found on the wrist of Meredith's jacket, another place that shows he could have used force to control her. I believe there was a fight, sadly one that Meredith lost.

 

[Grinder]

The best is La Nazione, both on twitter and in their articles. Right now the next hearing is on 9 January. Frank has given some updates that are pretty good as well but they are of course from an innocent POV. Honestly, two bad signs that I saw were Nencini's comments about Amanda not being there and the fact that the Kercher's hired yet another lawyer in addition to the ones they had. On a positive note, at least her e-mail letter was allowed to be read by the court.

I hope her Italian is better than her English. Her defense seems disorganized and ineffective. I think at this stage her email saying she didn't do it and that she was friends with Meredith didn't do anything to move the judges.

Hopefully Raf's lawyers will deal with the DNA and other "real" evidence poiunt by point and tear it apart. I wonder if Curatolo's Hellmann testimony can be shown along with the ICSI collecting techniques.

If the defense doesn't do a whole lot more than say there was no motive and look at these nice kids, they will be convicted.

O.T. - Stephanie Kercher wasn't represented by Maresca was she?

 

[RoseMontague]

I hope her Italian is better than her English. Her defense seems disorganized and ineffective. I think at this stage her email saying she didn't do it and that she was friends with Meredith didn't do anything to move the judges.

Hopefully Raf's lawyers will deal with the DNA and other "real" evidence poiunt by point and tear it apart. I wonder if Curatolo's Hellmann testimony can be shown along with the ICSI collecting techniques.

If the defense doesn't do a whole lot more than say there was no motive and look at these nice kids, they will be convicted.

O.T. - Stephanie Kercher wasn't represented by Maresca was she?

I don't have the details, just that there was an additional and new lawyer for the Kerchers that was allowed to argue as well. My understanding is the same lawyers plus one. The defense will continue on 9 January, the replies on 10 January. It may end then except for the verdict which date has not been set at this point.

 

[Matthew Best]

Again, it's the reason why Machiavelli refuses to put together of comprehensive timeline of what happened based on the evidence. He has to ignore the lack of forensics pointing to more than one attacker, to posit more than one attacker.

Look, he doesn't know how she did it, just that she must have done it somehow. When you know someone did a thing, I guess it really doesn't matter that much how it happened.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

scratch that

"'Where is the scratch on the blade?' Ghirga asked. Indeed, as we were writing just yesterday, that scratch on the blade that should have retained the DNA, doesn’t exist; it’s just imagination, or false information. Finally someone said that in court!" link

 

[Rolfe]

You haven't removed a woman's bra have you ?

Evidently not.

Rolfe.

 

[Bill Williams]

"'Where is the scratch on the blade?' Ghirga asked. Indeed, as we were writing just yesterday, that scratch on the blade that should have retained the DNA, doesn’t exist; it’s just imagination, or false information. Finally someone said that in court!" link

Of all the silly parts of Massei's this is in the top ten. Massei defends Stefanoni's explanation about the scratch where she claimed 36b was found.

No one else could find it. Please note, this is not a refutation that 36b itself does not exist.... it just provides an all too convenient explanation for how 36b could have survived cleaning.

Are you ready? Even though no one else could find this striation with either magnifying glass or microscope, Stefanoni said it was only noticeable to the naked eye, when the knife was slowly moved back and forth under a desk lamp.

The striation, apparently, would only be noticeable then.

Rather than actually investigate this, Massei simply took her at her word. Like he did with so many other bogus claims.

Such is Massei. Even guilters don't believe him. Just don't mention his views on motive or psychopathology for RS and AK. I did a few minutes ago, but think I got away with it.

 

[Matthew Best]

You mean where you mentioned that he said they were basically normal? Yeah, I don't think anyone noticed that.

 

[JREF2010]

It has just been done, yet again. The real question is if they will judge fairly after reviewing the evidence for themselves which they should do when they are getting two different interpretations from the lawyers. I am afraid I share some of Charlie's pessimism on this. But we will find out soon.

Who is explaining the peaks and controls and all the other details to the Judge?
My understanding is the RIS only did the one sample and reported on that only.
Did the RIS review all the work , as C&V did, and inform the Judge Nencini?

I'm confused, because it seems insane to allow a panel of non-scientists to ignorantly review DNA science and make a verdict from their shallow knowledge.

Surely this higher court trial requires more than:

Maresca "theres the victims DNA on the blade!! its the murder weapon!!"
Girgha "no it isnt!"

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Florence and the Supremes

Who is explaining the peaks and controls and all the other details to the Judge?
My understanding is the RIS only did the one sample and reported on that only.
Did the RIS review all the work , as C&V did, and inform the Judge Nencini?

I'm confused, because it seems insane to allow a panel of non-scientists to ignorantly review DNA science and make a verdict from their shallow knowledge.

Surely this higher court trial requires more than:

Maresca "theres the victims DNA on the blade!! its the murder weapon!!"
Girgha "no it isnt!"

The Court of Supreme Cassation did essentially that; they made a decision based on a shallow understanding of DNA (link). One of my concerns is that a decision to acquit would seem to require the Florence court to tell the CSC what a bunch of knuckleheads they are, at least with respect to forensics.

 

[christianahannah]

The stiching from the point where the sholder strap connects to the band all the way down to where the clasp piece is stitched to that band. Individually those cotton threads making the stitch are not all that tough. They snap one at a time as the force of separation is transferred down the line.

It wasn't just the end of the hook that was deformed on the clasp. One of the hooks was pulled nearly clear of the fabric. The force required to do that would rip the nail right off the finger that tried to pull it. It wasn't a finger trying to pry up the hook. it was Rudy's hand pulling up on the back band right below her sholder as the weight of Meredith's limp body pulls down on the other side.

This is another point that should be captured on video showing the bra comming apart without cutting.

The bra is pulled/cut apart in three different places - along the band at the hook, on both straps but at different points on each strap - one where the strap meets the band and the other where the strap loops around a plastic "o" piece.

I seem to recall, but am not 100% certain, that Meredith's shirt was still on but rolled up. I assume her arms were not out of the sleeves. If that is so one would have to cut the bra or pull it apart at the band and the two straps in order to remove it.

I wonder about the bra coming apart in the three different places that is needed in order to remove it. Don't you think cutting would have been easier than pulling?

 

[Grinder]

The bra is pulled/cut apart in three different places - along the band at the hook, on both straps but at different points on each strap - one where the strap meets the band and the other where the strap loops around a plastic "o" piece.

I seem to recall, but am not 100% certain, that Meredith's shirt was still on but rolled up. I assume her arms were not out of the sleeves. If that is so one would have to cut the bra or pull it apart at the band and the two straps in order to remove it.

I wonder about the bra coming apart in the three different places that is needed in order to remove it. Don't you think cutting would have been easier than pulling?

Do you think it would be possible to cut the bra without touching anything but the clasp? I don't see why the clasp would be touched at all.

 

[acbytesla]

Who is explaining the peaks and controls and all the other details to the Judge?
My understanding is the RIS only did the one sample and reported on that only.
Did the RIS review all the work , as C&V did, and inform the Judge Nencini?

I'm confused, because it seems insane to allow a panel of non-scientists to ignorantly review DNA science and make a verdict from their shallow knowledge.

Surely this higher court trial requires more than:

Maresca "theres the victims DNA on the blade!! its the murder weapon!!"
Girgha "no it isnt!"

You would think. But this isn't really a new trial. This is a review of the evidence. Fortunately the RIS did testify how Stefanoni's testing procedures failed to meet even the minimum requirements. Now, will the judge remember them?

 

[christianahannah]

Do you think it would be possible to cut the bra without touching anything but the clasp? I don't see why the clasp would be touched at all.

I think one could touch the clasp if trying to remove it first without cutting or pulling - material does not cover the front or top of the hooks. But you are correct in that you wouldn't have to touch the clasp in order to cut the bra.

I don't remember how the other part of the clasp looked - the "o" rings where the hooks fasten into - were they pulled out a little or much?

I would think if there was pulling on the bra strap enough so that it would come unstitched at the plastic "o" piece the "o" would break.

 

[acbytesla]

The Court of Supreme Cassation did essentially that; they made a decision based on a shallow understanding of DNA (link). One of my concerns is that a decision to acquit would seem to require the Florence court to tell the CSC what a bunch of knuckleheads they are, at least with respect to forensics.

My answer or question to that is "so?" Does that have any ramifications for Judge Nencini? The SC rules on lots of cases. One, are they really going to care about this one and two, would it matter?

 

[JREF2010]

You would think. But this isn't really a new trial. This is a review of the evidence. Fortunately the RIS did testify how Stefanoni's testing procedures failed to meet even the minimum requirements. Now, will the judge remember them?

I must have missed that RIS report discussion. thanks.

 

[codyjuneau]

Do you think it would be possible to cut the bra without touching anything but the clasp? I don't see why the clasp would be touched at all.

.
And isn't it amazing that the little piece of metal on the clasp, had the DNA of several males, none of whom were found on Meredith's bra strap, or her bra, or Meredith, or Meredith's clothes, or even in Meredith's room?

But coincidentally, this same little metal clasp was lost for six weeks after Meredith's murder, and then filmed being found and deliberately touched and manipulated by several police members wearing visibly dirty gloves.

Of course it could just be that several men had touched that little metal clasp, and only that little metal clasp before Meredith was murdered. Then coincidentally Raf just happened to also touch only that little metal clasp during Meredith's murder without leaving even the tiniest other trace of himself at the crime scene. Massei seems to have believed that is what happened. Machi probably does. Migi and Steph for sure. Maybe I am just being too picky. I mean if there is even a remote tiny itty bitty little sliver of a chance that they could be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, hell, throw them in jail for most of their life. Isn't that the way it works in the rest of the western world also? Isn't that what I would want done to my son or daughter? Of course it is, right Machi?
.