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

[Caper]

Luminol prints, bathmat print and Knox's lies are sufficient to their convction. The rest is further evidence, not rubbish.

I just can't understand how you believe what took place in that interrogation room could be considered lies. How can you be so well read on the topic and believe what happened in that room was appropriate.

 

[acbytesla]

Congrats to the Seahawks, they are an awesome team. But honestly, this has to be the worst Superbowl ever! Blowout.

Not exactly close game with tension..

Well most of us in Seattle believed that whoever won the NFC Championship was going to win the Super Bowl. That game was a classic. This is mind boggling. Big time Blowout now. 36-0.

I think it is safe to say the Seahawks are going to win Super Bowl 48.

 

[christianahannah]

The extradition question has been somewhat addressed by the State Department during its January 31 press briefing:

QUESTION: Can I ask about the Amanda Knox verdict --

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: And whether you think that there is a case to be made against – if she loses appeal to be made against her extradition, given that some legal experts have said there were irregularities in the case and given that she already was acquitted by --

MS. HARF: Well, the case is still – it’s my understanding – still working its way through the Italian legal system. So we don’t want to get ahead of that process. For any comments on the ongoing legal matter, I’d probably refer you to her attorneys or her herself.

QUESTION: But her attorneys have said that there were irregularities in the case. And given the fact that she was already overturned. I mean, does that say anything about whether the U.S. would consider extraditing her?

MS. HARF: Well, we’ll keep monitoring the case, obviously. We’ve been following it closely as it’s gone through the Italian legal system. I don’t have any more analysis of the Italian judicial procedure for you. But again, we’ll just keep monitoring it, and if we have anything else to say, as we get further along in the process, we will.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) can I just clarify whether there has actually been an extradition request made yet by the Italian authorities?

MS. HARF: Well, extradition requests, I understand, are legally private and confidential. So I don’t think I have more comment than that. We do have an extradition treaty, which has been in force since 1984.

QUESTION: But there have been several cases in which you’ve denied extradition to Italy.

MS. HARF: That’s true. I’m happy to see if – what the latest is from our folks. But I don’t think we generally comment on whether a request has been made.

QUESTION: Can you just more broadly just talk about the process apart from this case? What exactly is the State Department’s role? If it gets an extradition request, what do you do with a request?

MS. HARF: I understand that there is a legal process we go through here depending on whether there’s an extradition treaty or not.

QUESTION: Right. In the case of a country with – that you have a treaty with --

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- what is your role?

MS. HARF: I can check with our legal folks and see what the specific process is for how we consider extradition requests. I actually just don’t know what it is.

QUESTION: All right --

MS. HARF: I’m sorry. I don’t know the intricacies of that process.

QUESTION: Yeah, except that I raised this hours ago with your staff, who are supposed to be --

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: -- I mean, really? L can’t come up with a very simple answer like that in – is that right?

MS. HARF: Matt, I’m happy to check with our team to see – I understand it’s a case-by-case basis.

QUESTION: They didn’t get back to you?

MS. HARF: C’mon, Matt. The questions are for me, and I’d appreciate you addressing them to me --

QUESTION: Well, okay --

MS. HARF: -- and I did not get any --

QUESTION: I would --

MS. HARF: Wait. I did not get any clarity from our attorneys, who obviously have many things going on, about the process for extradition requests. I’m happy to check back in with them. And if there’s a TQ we can put out about how we evaluate those, generally speaking, I’m happy to do so.

QUESTION: I had specific questions as to what it is that the State Department does.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: You will recall, in the case of Manuel Noriega – or maybe you won’t – but in the case of Manuel Noriega, when the French requested his extradition, the Secretary actually had to sign off on the extradition once it had been approved by the Justice Department. I’m wondering if that is also the case with American citizens.

MS. HARF: I don’t know the answer.

QUESTION: All right.

MS. HARF: Again, I’m happy to check with our folks. But every case is different, obviously. I would urge folks from making broad generalizations about the process, but I’m happy to check to see what it is. Obviously, every extradition request is taken on a case-by-case basis.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/01/221118.htm#AMANDAKNOX

 

[acbytesla]

The extradition question has been somewhat addressed by the State Department during its January 31 press briefing:

You mean he didn't address it. He dodged it. I don't think they know what they'll do if it comes to that. Seahawks 43 Broncos 8

 

[christianahannah]

You mean he didn't address it. He dodged it. I don't think they know what they'll do if it comes to that. Seahawks 43 Broncos 8

Hence "somewhat." And I think the he is a she.

They probably do know what they'll do but they won't give that information out beforehand.

Thanks for the score update (I think).

 

[acbytesla]

Hence "somewhat." And I think the he is a she.

They probably do know what they'll do but they won't give that information out beforehand.

Thanks for the score update (I think).

Maybe they do. But I don't think they want to tell Italy no. They are an ally.
But I doubt Italy is going to ask that the US extradites Amanda Knox until at least their SC rules on the case and that won't be for another 15 months at least.

I'm not sure what Obama will do and it really is up to him. I think if Hillary become President, there is no way She would expedite Amanda

And it is possible the way this all moves so slowly that it will be the next President that faces this ultimately.

Game over. Seahawks WIN...

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Luminol prints, bathmat print and Knox's lies are sufficient to their convction. The rest is further evidence, not rubbish.

I find the ever-changing pro-guilty mythology fascinating.

Back when I first came to this topic I remember the early pro-guilt posters like Fulcanelli/Michael and Bob the Donkey loved the luminol splodges. They were their bread and butter. They were genuinely convinced that there was no possible explanation for them except that Knox and Sollecito (and nobody else in the world) had been cavorting in Meredith's blood barefoot and then cleaned it all up.

Then gradually it all fell apart. We noted that the splodges did not form a coherent trail from the murder scene, and that in fact the luminol evidence proved there had been no clean-up. We noted that the splodges actually tested negative for blood, which Stefanoni tried to conceal, indicating a strong possibility that they were made in some other unknown substance. Those two facts more or less rule out the idea that the splodges were splodges of Meredith's blood tracked about from the murder scene. We noted that the luminol splodges could not, in fact, be linked to anyone in particular's feet.We noted that the splodges couldn't even be linked in time to the murder and could have been deposited some time earlier or later.

The guilters gave up on the splodges.

The bathmat was another favourite toy in the early days. Who can forget the feigned incredulity about the so-called "bathmat boogie"? Exactly how it was evidence of guilt was never completely clear but they were definitely sure that no innocent person in history had ever scooted about on a bathmat to go get a towel. Case closed!

That too fell apart when it became obvious that the footprint in bloody water on the bathmat was far fainter than they thought it had been based on their favourite photographs, and that the footprint very clearly resembled that of Rudy Guede.

In the end they gave up on the bathmat as well.

Flash forward to 2014 and Machiavelli is trying to bring those same old pieces of dodgy "evidence" back. Has it been long enough that he thinks we have forgotten? Or have all the other arguments been smashed so flat that bringing back the bathmat and the luminol splodges seems like a good idea by comparison to anything else he might try?

 

[Strozzi]

I just can't understand how you believe what took place in that interrogation room could be considered lies. How can you be so well read on the topic and believe what happened in that room was appropriate.

I won't comment on fellow-poster Machiaveili, but I will comment about a guy who goes by the name Yummi. Yummi is clearly protecting the police's and prosecutor's interests. I can't recall anything he has found in the police's and prosecution's work that he found lacking, except that they did not charge Amanda with being a prostitute working for Guede her pimp. I remember the posts where Yummi was raising this as a hypothetical but he just couldn't find some factoid to claim that it is true. So he played up the idea that she was prostituting herself to Guede for drugs rather than money. I am surprised the prosecution did not introduce sex for drugs "barter" as a factoid and add a tax avoidance charge.

 

[JREF2010]

Flash forward to 2014 and Machiavelli is trying to bring those same old pieces of dodgy "evidence" back. Has it been long enough that he thinks we have forgotten? Or have all the other arguments been smashed so flat that bringing back the bathmat and the luminol splodges seems like a good idea by comparison to anything else he might try?

It seems the ISC brought back the old evidence and handed the requirements to follow to the Fast-Food trial of Nencini, with his puppet Judges of incompetence of the science.

As I understand this the conviction was based off the poop motive and the old witch-hunt evidence from 2007, and details of the DNA experts was ignored.

But we'll never really know what happened behind the closed doors with Nencini and his puppet-judges.

But anymore its like we say "you cant convict without evidence" and yet the truth is, legally, Nencini just did.

 

[Strozzi]

Maybe they do. But I don't think they want to tell Italy no. They are an ally.
But I doubt Italy is going to ask that the US extradites Amanda Knox until at least their SC rules on the case and that won't be for another 15 months at least.

I'm not sure what Obama will do and it really is up to him. I think if Hillary become President, there is no way She would expedite Amanda

And it is possible the way this all moves so slowly that it will be the next President that faces this ultimately.

Game over. Seahawks WIN...

The journalist asking the questions of the State Department press spokeswoman should have been more specific. If I were there I would have asked it this way "Retired FBI agent Steve Moore who investigated the interrogation of Amanda Knox by 12 Italian police officers said that Knox was hit by Italian police in a midnight police interrogation. Is that a factor that the Secretary would consider in evaluating an Italian request for extradition?"

If Hillary runs for president she will of course appear early in grass-roots talks in living rooms and schools in Iowa, New Hampshire, and elsewhere. She will answer questions by ordinary folk, covered by news cameras of course. She should be asked specific questions about this case so that she cannot but get the message that she willl be watched for her response. Maybe Ophra will have Knox on and refer to any support or indifference shown by Hillary. Lots of people will view that kind of discussion.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

luminol detects the possibility of blood

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...gainst-amanda-knox-theres-plenty-9099649.html

This article talks about the bra clasp and the knife, but I would appreciate any comments on the aspect of the mixed stain as quoted below. I understand Luminol does not just change colour to show blood, but the author thinks it significant as you can read below. There are comments on the website: one says: "Very concise reasoning as to how Knox is complicit."



Leila Schneps
Sunday 2 February 2014

"It's not right to say there is ‘no evidence’ in the case against Amanda Knox. There's plenty"

Although not visible to the naked eye, the chemical Luminol which flashes blue on contact with blood revealed a spot in the room of the flatmate whose window had been smashed and room rifled. Swabbing the spot produced a mixture of Amanda and Meredith’s DNA. This is a clear proof that the murderer entered that bedroom after the murder, as someone must have brought Meredith’s blood into the room, contradicting the defence theory that Rudy Guede broke into the house and then committed the murder. The usual defence explanation for mixed DNA stains in the bathroom and corridor, namely that the house would have been coated in Amanda’s DNA given that she lived there, does not necessarily apply to a flatmate’s bedroom. It is much harder to leave traces of DNA than is commonly conceived, and hardly any of Amanda's DNA was found in her own room - where she surely spent a lot more time than in her flatmate's.​

There are a number of problems with this passage, and one cannot do more than outline the problems in a comment (I have some entries on my blog that go into these things in greater detail). One, luminol is a presumptive test but is not a confirmatory test for blood. Some jurisdictions do not even allow luminol evidence into the courtroom without support of some kind. Two, the spot was negative by tetramethylbenzidine, and this substance has nearly as low a limit of detection of blood as luminol. If the FP had done a true confirmatory test for blood that came out positive, then I would accept that blood was necessarily present, but they did not. Three, even if the substance is blood, there are ways it might have been carried into the room by someone other than Ms. Knox. The most obvious is that it got there via the forensic police, who were photographed stepping into dried blood and were known not to change their shoe coverings. However, biological substances could have been transported into Filomena's room at any point over a six-week period. Going back to collect more forensic evidence after the cottage had been the scene of much traffic is bizarre. Four, finding mixed DNA does not prove anything about when the DNA was deposited. I have found examples of mixed DNA that could not possibly have been deposited simultaneously. Five, the forensic police were not doing a random sample of the house for DNA. Therefore, the number of times that someone's DNA was found is not meaningful. Six, exactly how does the author think that the Amanda deposited her DNA there? Her contention that DNA is much harder to deposit than is commonly conceived is 180 degrees wrong.

 

[RandyN]

Consensual act between two adults. If you wish to suggest he abused his position as president, there are other threads for that. What you stated there is inaccurate.
That is also inaccurate. It appears they she was convicted for one murder, once. The rest has been an appeals process.


Regret to disagree with you, amigo. Kevin added "racist" to a bash based on nationalism/chauvinism. He thus weakened a valid appeal to knock off the Italy bashing. (I concur with the appeal). Italian is not a race.

@RandyN A suggestion: breathe. Dragging in the case about the old man and the 11 year old muddies the waters regarding a case that has to do with young adults and murder.

I actually agree with the muddling of this particular case and honestly I don't have anything against Italians.

I use sarcasm as a argument style. It is often not effective and yet at this point so much chicanery has gone on in this case while at the same time Italians, their media, their politicians have all appeared to have wrapped themselves in their flag. Wrapped first around their eyes so they cant see and next around their minds so they cant think.

Sure we have crappy prosecutions in the USA and we lock up far too many drug addicts and those points might be valid argument if we collectively acted or rather failed to act or question and write and speak out about a Mike Nifong for example.

If we rallied behind clearly corrupt, or highly questionable acts and suspicious disappearing evidence or one off sub-standard tests oh and for good measure we ignore that our judiciary is using legal action to silence and threaten the press, so that they are not free to inform us...then I would say that we then also need called out on the world carpet as it were.

The ISC decision surrounding the pedophile is just the most recent example of how far off track the court actually is. The example before that was the RS/AK SC decision to overturn the appeal decision. We knew that was crazy and so waited for the motivation report and when it finally came out it was....what? Certifiably crazy. No error of law discussed. Rather that RG ISC decision stated that more than one person was involved. And so that must become a part of this case? And that somehow gets transferred to RS/AK case and in all of Italy we hear ehhhh. In the world we hear? Nothing because actually people don't have the concentration or interest to stick with this abomination and so Italy is basically getting away with a crazy scam.

And why do I care? Because it is so clearly unjust. So clearly corrupt. So controversial and yet the truth is getting buried deeper and deeper in the wordy lies and obfuscation of the Italian judiciary.

If we all stood behind Detective Robert Glenn Ford, the lead detective in the Norfolk Four case who elicited the false confessions from the Navy men and then we sat by as the prosecutor filed dozens of sub-related cases against anyone and everyone who was trying to report the facts and oddities about that case and then we ignored missing evidence like burned up hard drives and we ignored a scientists getting caught lying in court about the quantification of a critical one off sample and then she hides files and leaves out important information like TMB testing and she fails to prove her tests with controls and to this day it remains unclear if raw data was ever provided...and yet we as a people either by our silence or by speaking out in favor of a horribly risky prosecution (that is being incredibly kind) then we can begin to compare systems and values.

At this point I find the illogical lack of concern by Italians to be something unexplainable. And so I am forced to the conclusion that sure...OK put your own guy in jail and meanwhile the US will never overlook this abomination called a case in Italy....so fine we will never send the girl back.

And so Italy you now get whatever you deserve. Or rather what ever you are willing to accept or ignore. Like a 60 year old pedophile, or a free real confessed and videoed confession (how did they get that right?) uncle who killed his niece and then admits to raping her dead body and then tossing it down a well but......no. Only in Italy they decide a rock too heavy to move means that the Aunt and best girlfriend cousin did it. They release the killer and lock up the gals.

But I no longer care. Who wants to deal with dishonesty of this level? Who can trust a people so careless and thoughtless that they cant distinguish if sex with an 11 year old might be mitigable because of love.

So yes perhaps it is confusing to make a short list of recent Italian judicial atrocities and then whine about them...especially since I don't really care any more. Lock up your Italian young man Italy. He is innocent and your police and prosecutor and back slapping judiciary are guilty of dangerous silly behavior. But I don't have to live there now do I.

I highly respect Kevin Lowe and normally agree with all his points. Covering for atrocious Italian judicial dishonesty and the people who ignore it is not something I can close my eyes to however. Since I am of Italian ancestry I hardly think it is racial. More like I cant believe anyone can be this stupid to try to pull this one off. And then realizing that they are pulling it off. They are getting away with something so outlandish and yet I'm hearing ........crickets. Evil is prevailing and the good people are doing nothing! Oh well what the hell.

 

[Caper]

I find the ever-changing pro-guilty mythology fascinating.

Back when I first came to this topic I remember the early pro-guilt posters like Fulcanelli/Michael and Bob the Donkey loved the luminol splodges. They were their bread and butter. They were genuinely convinced that there was no possible explanation for them except that Knox and Sollecito (and nobody else in the world) had been cavorting in Meredith's blood barefoot and then cleaned it all up.

Then gradually it all fell apart. We noted that the splodges did not form a coherent trail from the murder scene, and that in fact the luminol evidence proved there had been no clean-up. We noted that the splodges actually tested negative for blood, which Stefanoni tried to conceal, indicating a strong possibility that they were made in some other unknown substance. Those two facts more or less rule out the idea that the splodges were splodges of Meredith's blood tracked about from the murder scene. We noted that the luminol splodges could not, in fact, be linked to anyone in particular's feet.We noted that the splodges couldn't even be linked in time to the murder and could have been deposited some time earlier or later.

The guilters gave up on the splodges.

The bathmat was another favourite toy in the early days. Who can forget the feigned incredulity about the so-called "bathmat boogie"? Exactly how it was evidence of guilt was never completely clear but they were definitely sure that no innocent person in history had ever scooted about on a bathmat to go get a towel. Case closed!

That too fell apart when it became obvious that the footprint in bloody water on the bathmat was far fainter than they thought it had been based on their favourite photographs, and that the footprint very clearly resembled that of Rudy Guede.

In the end they gave up on the bathmat as well.

Flash forward to 2014 and Machiavelli is trying to bring those same old pieces of dodgy "evidence" back. Has it been long enough that he thinks we have forgotten? Or have all the other arguments been smashed so flat that bringing back the bathmat and the luminol splodges seems like a good idea by comparison to anything else he might try?

Thanks for that.... I just can't compute that Machiavelli does not understand this. He is obviously smart. It's the same mentality of a 9/11 truther.

 

[Caper]

At this point I find the illogical lack of concern by Italians to be something unexplainable. And so I am forced to the conclusion that sure...OK put your own guy in jail and meanwhile the US will never overlook this abomination called a case in Italy....so fine we will never send the girl back.

This. In the end this is what the Italian mind set got them.

It was always about getting the "American slut".... always. Instead a murderer will be free and one of their own will rot in jail for 25 years.

Great job Italy... You should be proud of your country Mach.

 

[JREF2010]

The extradition question has been somewhat addressed by the State Department during its January 31 press briefing:

Interesting post, and moving forward is refreshing.

A "case by case basis" she states. I think there will be much better luck dealing with sane people outside the courts of a thousand motives, as we've seen.

If the ECHR is positive for Amanda, which I feel confident it will be due to the sloppy and suspicious interrogation, I would think this will be a huge positive for denying extradition. I only wonder how long this generally takes? Is it years, to be heard, and then years to reach a decision by the ECHR?

I look forward to the developments of the ECHR and expect the Extradition to be requested. A person only needs to read what Maresca spews in his vendetta, in party loyalty style, is that he doesnt want to lose.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes, but the ruling acknowledges the principle that the right to obtain counsel immediately is not absolute. You are right that the application was ruled inadmissible because does not meet the preliminary conditions. But the merit rules that the right to obtain legal advice is not absolute.

I know of no absolute rights. Like I said, the ECHR refers to 'fundamental' rights. Fundamental rights can be displaced but the use of the term suggests something pretty big is needed. I see nothing in this case, which doubtless explains why certain facts surrounding the interrogations remain shrouded in mystery. Otherwise, we would have tapes or written records, we would know what time Mignini got there and why Patrick had to be denied access to a lawyer too instead of being beaten up and called 'dirty black'.

 

[Strozzi]

Really? And I wonder how that could happen? Insufficient perhaps because some sloppy crime scene investigators failed to test a probable semen stain found under the dead victims body? Duh. Semen stains that dried with a shoe print found in that stain. This would unquestionably date that stain. And it is a simple matter this test. No cutting or damaging of critical factors found elsewhere on this pillow cover.

This is sloppy or corrupt police work. Mignini was in charge of the investigation. Therefore Mignini is once again responsible for this failure to do his job. Just as it was his failure by not allowing the pathologist to take a simple body temperature. The man was there. He is a well trained actual real doctor ...so not your typical doctor of Italy...like Dr Profasio and Dr Stefanoni. or Dr Guede. Is he a doctor yet? Must be nearly qualified by now. Clowns.

Did the scientific police identify the shoe model that left that shoeprint in the still-damp (putative semen) stain on the pillowcase. Did it match Rudy's known shoe model?

If the police did not identify it, can someone here look at the pillow case image and see if the shoe print in the stain resembles any part of the sole of Rudy's known shoe model?

 

[anglolawyer]

Police follow the law and law needs to be compliant with the statutes of HR.

.

1. There was no violation of HR. 2. Violation of art. 6 must be assessed only within the totality of the whole proceedings, the idea that once an event alleged to be 'violation' occurs, the subsequent trial events after that would be irrelevant to the fariness of trial, is just plain delusional under the light of the ECHR prnciples.

Cite?

A consideration of the totality of the proceedings will only strengthen an appeal to the ECHR given their manifestly unfair nature.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Thanks for that.... I just can't compute that Machiavelli does not understand this. He is obviously smart. It's the same mentality of a 9/11 truther.

Bingo. It's a two part formula:

First, reject the obvious.

Second, seize on any small details that are vague or unexplained and insist they can only mean whatever you want them to mean.

That is the method of thinking these people use, whether their fixation is 9-11, bigfoot, cattle mutilations or trying to make a case against Amanda Knox.

ETA: The difference is that most conspiracy theorists don't have a national court system that validates their delusional thinking. BUT, most national court systems don't have a 9-11 truther as their "honorary president." Italy does...

 

[anglolawyer]

A side note. I point out a detail that those who agree with you tend to omit: based on the very same principles, the jury would not have known anything about Rudy Guede's being investigated or suspected of other alleged crimes, and also the public would not know anything about rumors or suspicions of Guede committing theft or burglaries. A significant portion of the innocentisti campaign is based on information about Guede that would be considered inadmissible and prejudicial in the same jurisdictions.

Apples and oranges Mach. I am not completely sure you are right actually, as the strong possibility that Rudy was the rock throwing climber at the law firm might have been admissible as similar fact evidence to prove he was the rock thrower at the apartment. It would certainly have been information to which Knox and Sollecito would have been entitled and able to use in their own defence. But Guede's involvement can be proved without all that stuff. Things are not so clear regarding the 'confessions' which is why you were so jubilant that her calunnia appeal failed. You rightly saw that as another nail in the coffin for the ECHR to take out.