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

[JREF2010]

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.

I hope Im wrong, but the closing arguments don't seem to be as in depth as this link article.

How they can drag a case on for six years and more, and then rush through this trial is hard to believe the system is truly seeking the truth.

I guess the main question will be how much Nencini will read.

 

[acbytesla]

I must have missed that RIS report discussion. thanks.

The RIS which is the Carbaneiri Science Lab in Rome provided a report to their testing procedures since they tested Sample 36I which was requested by the Italian Supreme Court. The doctor from the RIS explained the report and answered questions about procedure. She said that they would not accept any positive results without a minimum of two tests and even then would remain skeptical. Sample 36B was only tested once.

 

[Strozzi]

Guess who wiped her dirty glove on the bra clasp

.
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?
.

Codyjuneau, are you aware that the police person videotaped holding the bra clasp with dirty gloves and then wiping her dirty gloved fingers over the hook in a view partially concealed from the camera is none other than Dr. Stefanoni, the police forensic scientist who analyzed the bra clasp and discovered Raffaele's DNA on the hook.
I contend that there is no way she made a special trip to Perugia to pick up this needed item to pin the crime on Raffaele and was going to do so on the oft-chance that maybe, just maybe, just little bitty maybe, it might have his DNA on it. I contend that she made certain his DNA was on it. I contend that she deliberately planted Raffaele's evidence on the bra hook between the time she first touched it and the time she analyzed it in her lab. Only she didn't count on the DNA of 3 other males to also be on the hook. So she has withheld the rest of the machine-generated data showing her analysis and she immersed the cloth and metal clasp in liquid to store it in such a way that it could not be analyzed again.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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.

It is what it is. You can tell from the photos that it was torn off, not cut, and you can see where the rips occurred.

This is not an innocentisti argument. If the bra had been sliced off with a knife, it wouldn't change anything else. It's just that a careful look at the photos shows that it was torn.

 

[tsig]

Don't obfuscate. You are not acusing magistrates of being wrong. You are accusing magistrates - many of them, but also a number of other people, and also superior institutions such as the Supreme Court - of being an incredibly organized bunch of corrupt criminals running a huge conspiracy apparently bigger than the Dreyfuss affair.

How many people have risked their careers and even their freedom in order to convict Amanda.

Never have so many conspired to convict so few.

 

[Diocletus]

How many people have risked their careers and even their freedom in order to convict Amanda.

Never have so many conspired to convict so few.

That's the problem: they don't risk anything by convicting her; the risk to them comes from failing to convict her.

 

[RoseMontague]

How many people have risked their careers and even their freedom in order to convict Amanda.

Never have so many conspired to convict so few.

What does the evidence show is how a person should approach the question of guilt or innocence. Not what the cops or judges say. Have you an opinion on what the evidence in this case shows?

 

[Strozzi]

How many people have risked their careers and even their freedom in order to convict Amanda.

Never have so many conspired to convict so few.

Perugia medical examiner Lalli risked his career when he determined that the autopsy showed that the victim's wounds and injuries could have been committed by a lone assailant or several. Mignini tried to get Lalli to testify against his original findings and Lalli was not pliable. Mignini dismissed him on a pretext.

The unidentified policewoman who came out of the questura at night as Raffaele was heading to his car in the parking lot to tell him to get a lawyer risked her career.

The defense attorneys risk their careers.

Frank Sfarzo risked his safety in blogging about the defendants' innocence.

 

[RoseMontague]

That's the problem: they don't risk anything by convicting her; the risk to them comes from failing to convict her.

That is a great point, Diocletus.

 

[Bill Williams]

Don't obfuscate. You are not acusing magistrates of being wrong. You are accusing magistrates - many of them, but also a number of other people, and also superior institutions such as the Supreme Court - of being an incredibly organized bunch of corrupt criminals running a huge conspiracy apparently bigger than the Dreyfuss affair.

How many people have risked their careers and even their freedom in order to convict Amanda.

Never have so many conspired to convict so few.

I'm assuming that most who participated in this wrongful prosecution were not aware at the time that this was what they were doing. The measures Mignini initially took (denying then a lawyer right up until their first appearance) were designed, really, as anti-Mafia measures... for me this would signal to everyone down the line that "seriousness" Mignini was treating this with - so the assumption would be that "Mignini must know something and would not be doing this lightly."

The key is that the prosecution case before the Nencini court right now, is not the case that Mignini initially told people. Whereas it is true that "motive" is not ultimately essential....

.... the mere fact that the prosecution keeps offering up differing motives (about 6 in all) means that it must mean something to the prosecution....

.... but more so, that it would never have got this far unless there was "something".

Well, as the RIS Carabineiri have pointed out, there is, in fact, nothing. Even the most global, osmotic evaluation of this case still means 100 worthless assertions, still means 100 x 0 = 0.

It is not necessary to posit a wide ranging conspiracy, really. It's just that at each step of the way, everyone along the way assumes that they're just passing it along.

Real conspiracies actually do happen. Wide ranging conspiracies with only a few people managing it, hoping that intermediaries will simply go along. It does not mean the intermediaries are plotters.

Abraham Lincoln's assassination was the result of a conspiracy... I mean, four people were hanged for it, and one gunned down in a barn. Iran-Contra in the Reagan presidency was an obvious conspiracy, based on underlings doing stuff keeping the president safe with "plausible deniability."

 

[Bill Williams]

How many people have risked their careers and even their freedom in order to convict Amanda.

Never have so many conspired to convict so few.

Perugia medical examiner Lalli risked his career when he determined that the autopsy showed that the victim's wounds and injuries could have been committed by a lone assailant or several. Mignini tried to get Lalli to testify against his original findings and Lalli was not pliable. Mignini dismissed him on a pretext.

The unidentified policewoman who came out of the questura at night as Raffaele was heading to his car in the parking lot to tell him to get a lawyer risked her career.

The defense attorneys risk their careers.

Frank Sfarzo risked his safety in blogging about the defendants' innocence.

Hellmann risked his career, and is facing accusations from Machiavelli which amounts to defamation - Zanetti, another acquitting judge, continues to serve.

Chiacchiera risked his career - if you believe John Follain - by suggesting that RS and AK not be arrested after their interrogations. After he was eased out.

Out of all the reporters who made a lot of income from filing tabloid trash, the only two who are left are Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt. Everyone else has gone on to less lucrative reporting.... Nadeau is milking her cash from a film, which bills itself as not even being about the horrible murder, really.

Then there's Andrea. IMO she's the one who in the long term will have irreputable harm done to her career when she is seen as a PR outlet for Mignini.

 

[platonov]

Sticking the knife in again

So .. the victim’s family ask via their lawyer that Knox remove the link to the MK donation fund from her website – which also contains a funding link for RS.

She refuses unless the family of the woman she currently stands convicted of murdering contacts her directly.

And then later relents – presumably on advice.

How could anyone think this woman was intimately involved in the murder of MK?
Why, the very idea is absurd.

 

[codyjuneau]

Codyjuneau, are you aware that the police person videotaped holding the bra clasp with dirty gloves and then wiping her dirty gloved fingers over the hook in a view partially concealed from the camera is none other than Dr. Stefanoni, the police forensic scientist who analyzed the bra clasp and discovered Raffaele's DNA on the hook.
I contend that there is no way she made a special trip to Perugia to pick up this needed item to pin the crime on Raffaele and was going to do so on the oft-chance that maybe, just maybe, just little bitty maybe, it might have his DNA on it. I contend that she made certain his DNA was on it. I contend that she deliberately planted Raffaele's evidence on the bra hook between the time she first touched it and the time she analyzed it in her lab. Only she didn't count on the DNA of 3 other males to also be on the hook. So she has withheld the rest of the machine-generated data showing her analysis and she immersed the cloth and metal clasp in liquid to store it in such a way that it could not be analyzed again.

.
Hi Strozzi. Yes, I heard that was pseuDoc Stef, but personally I think whoever planned the trip also planned the bra clasp discovery. I think Stef just follows along.

I think Migi likes to confide in people. Kind of the way Machi confides things to us without any proof, like Hellman being a Mason and being paid to find Raf and Amanda innocent, that sort of thing. Migi likes to privately imply he has confidential information that proves Raf and Amanda are guilty. It keeps his followers loyal you know, because if they think Migi knows the real truth, then they are more willing to do whatever it takes to find Raf and Amanda guilty. He sure snookered that first judge, was it Matteini? Bill, what was that rumour you heard about the judge regretting listening to Migi?
.

 

[RoseMontague]

So .. the victim’s family ask via their lawyer that Knox remove the link to the MK donation fund from her website – which also contains a funding link for RS.

She refuses unless the family of the woman she currently stands convicted of murdering contacts her directly.

And then later relents – presumably on advice.

How could anyone think this woman was intimately involved in the murder of MK?
Why, the very idea is absurd.

Actually, my understanding is that Maresca implied that Amanda was actually collecting the money, not just providing a link to the Kerchers website. What a piece of worm slime Maresca is.

 

[Bill Williams]

So .. the victim’s family ask via their lawyer that Knox remove the link to the MK donation fund from her website – which also contains a funding link for RS.

She refuses unless the family of the woman she currently stands convicted of murdering contacts her directly.

And then later relents – presumably on advice.

How could anyone think this woman was intimately involved in the murder of MK?
Why, the very idea is absurd.

I think this pretty well sums up the case against Amanda Knox. Meaning: there is no case against her, but there are some people in the world who draw lines between dots where there are no dots.

This poster above thinks that the sin is that she did it "on advice", presumably if she'd down it absent advice, then that would be ok. The thing is, this poster admits to a fact - she relented. The missing dot - "on advice".

I'm not sure why that is even in there... it must have some "guilt" meaning to it which escapes me.

And yet the final line to a dot which is not there either.... the notion that this woman is involved in a murder is not based on evidence, it is based on character assassination, or a single link to another website - all with the purpose of raising money for the Kerchers!

The logic of guilters is truly whacky. You'd think that RIS Carabineiri saying that the kitchen knife, touted for 6 years as a murder weapon, had nothing to do with a murder would have some effect on these people...

.... no: a dispute over a single link, intended to raise money FOR the Kerchers...

I don't get it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Actually, my understanding is that Maresca implied that Amanda was actually collecting the money, not just providing a link to the Kerchers website. What a piece of worm slime Maresca is.

Not only that, but also (to the best of my knowledge) Maresca never said anything along the lines of "My clients (i.e. the Kerchers) request that Knox takes down the link to the Meredith Fund".

For all those who suggest that Maresca's voice is, to all intents and purposes, that of the Kerchers, I would say that outside of matters within the purview of the criminal trial, those people are ignorant and incorrect. If Maresca is/was representing the Kerchers' view in this extra-judicial matter, then he needs to make it clear that he is acting on the Kerchers' instruction. It's as simple as that.

If I were to write an article offending (say) Richard Branson, I might get a letter from his lawyer. The letter would not say something like: "I (Mr A Lawyer) request that you remove your defamatory article about Richard Branson." It would say something like: "I am acting on behalf of Mr Richard Branson, who requests that you remove your defamatory article about him".

It is the individual who threatens/takes legal action in such instances. Not his/her/their lawyer. The lawyer must therefore make it clear whether (s)he is acting on instruction or not. And where Maresca is involved, I fully agree with Knox that he has amply demonstrated in the past that he is too untrustworthy and devious to allow Knox to make any automatic assumptions that he's acting on the instruction of the Kerchers in this matter, or whether he is just grandstanding on his own behalf.

Note also that I am guessing that Knox would have found another communication from Maresca sufficient, provided that he made it clear that he was acting on the instruction of the Kerchers. My guess, therefore, is that she did not mean that she needed the Kerchers to contact her directly (i.e. not through an intermediary). But those who think she's a "psycho control biatch" can continue to convince themselves that she was further "taunting" the Kerchers, if it makes them feel better about their own sad, sorry lives. It doesn't matter to me, and it shouldn't matter to Knox, what these broken individuals think or write.

 

[Bill Williams]

Me, I wish that someone from the guilter side had said, "How could anyone think this woman was intimately involved in the murder of MK? Why, the very idea is absurd." after the Aveillo testimony.

Why didn't they do that? Because Aveillo denied that the Sollecitos had coerced him to say what he/she had said... therefore the idea that RS and AK are guilty IS absurd.

Me, I wish that someone from the guilter side had said, "How could anyone think this woman was intimately involved in the murder of MK? Why, the very idea is absurd." after the RIS carabinieri broight their report about the DNA in 36l.

Why didn't they do that? Because the RIS carabinieri pretty much trashed the kitchen knife as part of this crime, and showed why Stefanoni's methods were inherently flawed, keeping this ridiculous knife in play for 6 years... therefore the idea that RS and AK are guilty IS absurd.

Me, I wish that someone from the guilter side had said, "How could anyone think this woman was intimately involved in the murder of MK? Why, the very idea is absurd." after prosecutor Crini offered yet another motive for the crime. Yes, motive is relatively unimportant, but why, then do the prosecutor(s) keep bring it up, and offering a seemingly never ending litany of them?

Why didn't they do that? Because it is ludicrous to believe Amanda killed Meredith over pooh in a toilet that didn't even concern the two of them... therefore the idea that RS and AK are guilty IS absurd.

Me, I wish that someone from the guilter side had said, "How could anyone think this woman was intimately involved in the murder of MK? Why, the very idea is absurd." after prosecutor Crini offered an as yet unmentioned equivalence of the kitchen knife with the blood outline of a knife on the sheet?

Why didn't they do that? Because even Mignini was not this crazy to submit that equivalency - Mignini instead offered a two-knife scenario because of the obvious mismatch... therefore the idea that RS and AK are guilty IS absurd.

Instead... the guilters lay in the weeds to take a potshot at Amanda Knox over a dispute over a single link on her webpage... and somehow this dispute becomes the Rosetta Stone for understanding why Platonov thinks she's guilty.

Friends. I give you the guilters.

 

[Bill Williams]

.Bill, what was that rumour you heard about the judge regretting listening to Migi?
.

Remember, and it needs to be stated upfront, that is (as presented to me) is unverified. So everyone has a right to mistrust this... that needs to be said right upfront.

But a source from the courtroom where Mignini was, as a defendant in the Narducci, abuse of office affair, said this. I think it was Michaeli... the same judge who had commited RS and AK to trial... said that he'd always regretted committing them to trial.

As soon as I get something that confirms this, I'll pass it on.

 

[charlatan]

So .. the victim’s family ask via their lawyer that Knox remove the link to the MK donation fund from her website – which also contains a funding link for RS.

She refuses unless the family of the woman she currently stands convicted of murdering contacts her directly.

And then later relents – presumably on advice.

How could anyone think this woman was intimately involved in the murder of MK?
Why, the very idea is absurd.

Now even if she were a thoughtless idiot this would have precisely zero value in determining her guilt, at least to someone with an IQ above room temperature. But I'd say she and Raffa have both been admirably patient under constant harassment and scrutiny -- certainly more patient than I would be if I had Maresca the Odious nipping at my heels.

 

[Strozzi]

Duplicate