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

[Machiavelli]

Case in point - Machiavelli is willing to attempt a case against Knox, based on a non-existent "relationship" between her an Rudy Guede. This is combined with being completely resistant to develop a comprehensive timeline of the crime, one that fits with Dan O.'s known way-points.

The elements indicating contacts between Guede and Knox are not argument to build a case against Knox; the function of the argument is to undermine the positive defensive counter-argument that Knox would not have any contacts with Guede, on anthropological, social and historical grounds (honor student, alleged proven "difference" or "distance" etc.).

Welcome to the lies - not to mention the unfounded innuendo. Then again if there were no lies and unfounded innuendo, there'd be NO case against Knox or Sollecito.

The basic problem is this is false. There is everything you need to convict Knox based on the evidence (autopsy, lies, etc.). The conjectures about Knox are useful, in order to counter the conjectures by which you try to build a case for Knox's innocence and suggesting an unproven accustion scenario against Guede.
If there were no vicious pro-Knox PR propaganda, wild conjectures against Guede, no false defamatory accusations against Mignini and Stefanoni, no anti-Italian racism, no hypocritical omerta' by a bunch of supporters, there would be no conjectures about Knox.
The conjectures about Knox are not the "case" about Knox. They are a response to the insults and vicious lies that you and the Knox supporters are trying to use agaist others.

 

[Dan O.]

Oh and Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp, that WOULD be extremely significant if the bra clasp hadn't been laying around and then moved and then picked up and then tested and so badly preserved that it had even rusted and the other DNA on the bra clasp which has never been revealed to have been tested, as far as I know; Add to that, that they never found Raffaele's DNA anywhere else in the room or on the bra and that makes it more probable it's contamination then not.

What makes any piece of evidence more significant is when it fits together with other pieces of evidence to form a consistent picture. The DNA on the clasp hook is an outlier where the only picture it fits is one that is completely fabricated by the prosecution. In fact, other evidence such as how the clasp was torn from the bra, blood splatter showing that the bra was removed while Meredith was still alive, Rudy Guede's DNA on the bra itself all form a compleatly different picture that is incompatible with the clasp hook being touched at the time of the murder.

The elements you mention cast suspiscion on the validity of the evidence itself.

 

[Machiavelli]

I do not know definition in Italian law, but I think in England theft involves intentionally depriving someone of the benefits of something. It remains theft if you take something and destroy it or dispose of it.

The other problem with your argument is that the person taking the item may have intended keeping or selling the item when taken, then changed their mind and dumped it. It was theft when taken.

Yes, it's the same if you take something and destroy it, under the legal point of view. It's always theft. However the motive changes. If you want to catch the theive, you woud look for those who have an interest in disposing of it, rather than those who want to keep it.

About the second argument: about this, your point is wrong. It is possible that the person intended to keep the item and then changed idea; yes, it is possible, wut it is the weaker possibility. It's more complicate and less consistent, less logical. You need to answer the question: "why did he take the item in the first place", what was his/her motive, and the answer to this happens to be logically weak.
If you assume that the person took the phones with the intent to actually dump them, the explanation is simpler, and it's stronger, it explains the action better.

The weaker hypothesis is not good, because in order to convict someone on it, you need to prove it. Otherwise there cannot be any conviction for theft. Instead, as for the stronger possibility, all what is required is that the judge thinks there is independent evidence of a staging; if it is proven that a staging occurred, if you have evidence that someone did intended to alter the scene, then you a further element in support the strongr hypothesis and you can consider it as part of a staging.

 

[RoseMontague]

The elements indicating contacts between Guede and Knox are not argument to build a case against Knox; the function of the argument is to undermine the positive defensive counter-argument that Knox would not have any contacts with Guede, on anthropological, social and historical grounds (honor student, alleged proven "difference" or "distance" etc.).

The basic problem is this is just more made up fantasy and wishful thinking made up by those that viciously insult and hate AK and RS.

 

[Machiavelli]

Am I understanding correctly that it is Machiavelli who reports that Mignini told him he, Mignini, was in REM sleep when awoken by a call to come to the Questura? I realize Mach is experienced with sleep issues and disorders. I certainly understand that Mach knows a great deal about REM. Did Mach ask Mignini about when he was awoken to come to thevQuestura? Did Mignini answer Mach and add the details as to how soundly he was asleep and use the technical term REM? Or did Mach tell Mignini he was in the REM stage?

Mignini was telling about his arrival at the Questura, my question was: "what time it was? Was it around midnight?" and I asked no further question on the point. Mignini said "no, it was later than 2am", said he arrived after 2am and then recalled he had been aslep for a while when he was awaken. The "REM slep" detail is just Mignini's words describing the event.
I will not provide any further explanation on this point because all what I said is clear.
I point out that Giobbi's testimony confirms this.

 

[MichaelB]

Mignini was telling about his arrival at the Questura, my question was: "what time it was? Was it around midnight?" and I asked no further question on the point. Mignini said "no, it was later than 2am", said he arrived after 2am and then recalled he had been aslep for a while when he was awaken. The "REM slep" detail is just Mignini's words describing the event.
I will not provide any further explanation on this point because all what I said is clear.
I point out that Giobbi's testimony confirms this.

Can you tell me how Crini explained them teaming up with Guede? I missed that part. Did they meet him on the way to the cottage or he knocked on the door or was already there?

This is a serious question. I haven't seen it in the news or transcripts yet. If you could give the page number for him explaining it that would be good but otherwise I'd like to know what he said for how Guede came to be in the house.

 

[Dan O.]

The mixed DNA Luminol print in the hallway near Filomena's door is a shoe print, not a foot print. Both Massei and Hellman incorrectly call it a footprint.

Both Vinci's report and Stefanoni's testimony confirm it is a shoe print. You can also tell by the photo it is an unidentified shoe print not consistent with the patterns of the tennis shoes found, it is rather a smooth surface, like a dress shoe or one of the footies worn by the bunnies wandering around the cottage.

Vinci is unable to match this shoe print with any of the reference shoes he has. Not enough emphasis has been placed on this in my opinion. It makes me wish there was a picture of the "blob" found in Filomena's room. Common sense would suggest it is a good possibility that it was made by the same person.

Have you got a photo number for this print in the hall?

 

[Machiavelli]

The basic problem is this is just more made up fantasy and wishful thinking made up by those that viciously insult and hate AK and RS.

Made up, you mean the fantasies that Guede raped a dying person, that Mignini coerced people during interrogations and violated laws, that Stefanoni fabricates evidence...
Idiotic fantasies that Massei found the two suspects were "normal", insults against me, saying I lied about things where I am obviously saying the truth...

 

[Strozzi]

Originally Posted by HotNostril
I think they are both guilty.

The devil is in the details and theirs NEVER match up.

Few things that I can not reconcile.

AK footprints in blood ...and it was blood...prove she staged that burglary and proves to me she brought Meredith's blood into that bathroom.

I am just going to address this for now, as I am running late and must be somewhere shortly.

Read Stefanoni's testimony. She repeatedly states there are other things which can cause Luminol to glow. And the footprints were not blood, because they tested negative during the confirmatory testing.

Ampulla, HotNostril is not interested in reading factual testiomony. HotNosgtril is as biased as they come and is here to provoke. She doesn't want facts to get in the way. HotNostril enjoys taunting but cringes at the thought of putting together a timeline of the murder. Same as Yummi.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes, it's the same if you take something and destroy it, under the legal point of view. It's always theft. However the motive changes. If you want to catch the theive, you woud look for those who have an interest in disposing of it, rather than those who want to keep it.

About the second argument: about this, your point is wrong. It is possible that the person intended to keep the item and then changed idea; yes, it is possible, wut it is the weaker possibility. It's more complicate and less consistent, less logical. You need to answer the question: "why did he take the item in the first place", what was his/her motive, and the answer to this happens to be logically weak.
If you assume that the person took the phones with the intent to actually dump them, the explanation is simpler, and it's stronger, it explains the action better.

The weaker hypothesis is not good, because in order to convict someone on it, you need to prove it. Otherwise there cannot be any conviction for theft. Instead, as for the stronger possibility, all what is required is that the judge thinks there is independent evidence of a staging; if it is proven that a staging occurred, if you have evidence that someone did intended to alter the scene, then you a further element in support the strongr hypothesis and you can consider it as part of a staging.

Outside Italy, in fact outside an Italian court room, that is all meaningless, fake 'reasoning'. Also contradictory. You just said it's theft regardless whether the motive was to keep or dump. Now you are suggesting that motive for the weaker hypothesis must be proved. I thought it was a tenet of guilter mythology that motive did not have to be proved.

This is not complicated. The phones could have been taken for all kinds of reasons, by Guede of course: to sell, to use, to delay discovery of the body (e.g. if someone called and heard her phone inside her locked room). His DNA was inside the bag he took them from (yes, the bag Stefanoni left behind for 6 weeks). He might have taken them with one idea but realised it was not a good one and tossed them over Lana's hedge or he might have taken them to toss them. And whether he took them to toss, use or sell, he was guilty of theft unless Italian law is so badly drafted as to allow a loophole where the mental element is concerned with anything other than the affect on the loser.

Finally, your non-point about it not being possible to steal from a corpse is simply irrelevant to anything.

 

[Machiavelli]

Can you tell me how Crini explained them teaming up with Guede? I missed that part. Did they meet him on the way to the cottage or he knocked on the door or was already there?

This is a serious question. I haven't seen it in the news or transcripts yet. If you could give the page number for him explaining it that would be good but otherwise I'd like to know what he said for how Guede came to be in the house.

I don't remember if he said anything on this, but does it make any difference? It's speculation, not evidence; is there anything important in a speculation on what's the place where Knox first met Guede that night (there or twenty meters from there)?

 

[Strozzi]

Mignini was telling about his arrival at the Questura, my question was: "what time it was? Was it around midnight?" and I asked no further question on the point. Mignini said "no, it was later than 2am", said he arrived after 2am and then recalled he had been aslep for a while when he was awaken. The "REM slep" detail is just Mignini's words describing the event.
I will not provide any further explanation on this point because all what I said is clear.
I point out that Giobbi's testimony confirms this.

Machiavelli, thank you for adding that. I know you must be very knowledgeable of REM so I wondered how it came up in the conversation. I was not previously aware that people other than those with sleep issues or medical training talk about waking up from REM sleep. Now I am aware of it. I hope Mignini does not suffer sleep issues. It is no fun having your sleep disturbed.

 

[RoseMontague]

Made up, you mean the fantasies that Guede raped a dying person, that Mignini coerced people during interrogations and violated laws, that Stefanoni fabricates evidence...
Idiotic fantasies that Massei found the two suspects were "normal", insults against me, saying I lied about things where I am obviously saying the truth...

Nope. That is not what I "mean" at all. If you are trying to read my mind you have failed miserably. I am talking about stuff like the claim that Amanda was sexually attracted to Meredith. That is what I "mean" by insulting and vicious fantasies.

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't remember if he said anything on this, but does it make any difference? It's speculation, not evidence; is there anything important in a speculation on what's the place where Knox first met Guede that night (there or twenty meters from there)?

The entire case is speculation. There is no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele met Rudy that night. Just another Let's pretend moment.

 

[Dan O.]

Made up, you mean the fantasies that Guede raped a dying person, that Mignini coerced people during interrogations and violated laws, that Stefanoni fabricates evidence...
Idiotic fantasies that Massei found the two suspects were "normal", insults against me, saying I lied about things where I am obviously saying the truth...

When have you ever been able to say the truth. Just look at that purported semen stain and tell us what about it contradicts that Rudy Guede physically raped Meredith Kercher while she was dying after having her throat slit.

 

[Machiavelli]

Outside Italy, in fact outside an Italian court room, that is all meaningless, fake 'reasoning'. Also contradictory. You just said it's theft regardless whether the motive was to keep or dump. Now you are suggesting that motive for the weaker hypothesis must be proved. I thought it was a tenet of guilter mythology that motive did not have to be proved.

This is not complicated. The phones could have been taken for all kinds of reasons, by Guede of course: to sell, to use, to delay discovery of the body (e.g. if someone called and heard her phone inside her locked room). His DNA was inside the bag he took them from (yes, the bag Stefanoni left behind for 6 weeks). He might have taken them with one idea but realised it was not a good one and tossed them over Lana's hedge or he might have taken them to toss them. And whether he took them to toss, use or sell, he was guilty of theft unless Italian law is so badly drafted as to allow a loophole where the mental element is concerned with anything other than the affect on the loser.

You are wrong. Your argument is invalig and illogical everywhere. "He might have taken them with one idea but realised it was not a good one and tossed them over Lana's hedge or he might have taken them to toss them" is the repetition of the hypothesys which I have already shown to be weak and unproven. Therefore it is not good to convict someone on it. You may think it's possible, but you have no proof. Guede could never be convicted of theft base on it.

And what I said is perfectly consistent, not contradictory at all. Is motive necessary to convict? No. But the logic is as follows: motive can be relevant only insofar as it is evidence. If motive is evidence, that is if there is logical evidence of a motive, this is relevant in one direction or in the other. If facts have no logical content as for a motive, motive is irrelevant.
So motive is unnecessary on principle, but might be relevant if facts indicate that evidence exists as a pice circumstantial evidence.
You should understand this as a lawyer.

Guede's DNA was not inside the bag: it was outside the bag, and one of the phones used to be in the pocket Meredith's jeans. He would not keep it in her purse. Moreover, not many people could guess Meredith had two phones. In order to search for it, you need to know it exists.

My purpose, explaining all of this, is to show there was no evidence to convict Guede of the theft of the phones (that would not have added anyhing significant to his final 16 years sentence anyway).

But if you have enough evidence that someone performed a staging, and (just to add something firthr) also indication that Guede instead ran away immediataly, than you may have enough evidence to attribute the theft of the phones to the stagers, since the theft is in the first and stronger explanation, a staging/alteration activity.

 

[Diocletus]

Finally, your non-point about it not being possible to steal from a corpse is simply irrelevant to anything.

Can a corpse actually own property? That would seem weird. You would think that at the moment of Meredith Kercher's death, her phone would belong to her heirs at law (probably her parents).

 

[RoseMontague]

Outside Italy, in fact outside an Italian court room, that is all meaningless, fake 'reasoning'. Also contradictory. You just said it's theft regardless whether the motive was to keep or dump. Now you are suggesting that motive for the weaker hypothesis must be proved. I thought it was a tenet of guilter mythology that motive did not have to be proved.

This is not complicated. The phones could have been taken for all kinds of reasons, by Guede of course: to sell, to use, to delay discovery of the body (e.g. if someone called and heard her phone inside her locked room). His DNA was inside the bag he took them from (yes, the bag Stefanoni left behind for 6 weeks). He might have taken them with one idea but realised it was not a good one and tossed them over Lana's hedge or he might have taken them to toss them. And whether he took them to toss, use or sell, he was guilty of theft unless Italian law is so badly drafted as to allow a loophole where the mental element is concerned with anything other than the affect on the loser.

Finally, your non-point about it not being possible to steal from a corpse is simply irrelevant to anything.

Exactly. Completely correct.

 

[Diocletus]

My purpose, explaining all of this, is to show there was no evidence to convict Guede of the theft of the phones (that would not have added anyhing significant to his final 16 years sentence anyway).

You mean aside from the fact that he raped and killed the person who possessed the phones, and then fled the country?

I don't think he stole them, either. He was just moving them.

 

[Machiavelli]

When have you ever been able to say the truth. Just look at that purported semen stain and tell us what about it contradicts that Rudy Guede physically raped Meredith Kercher while she was dying after having her throat slit.

Kaosium basically admitted the pillow under the body is not a proof of this scenario. It's merely a detail which the pro-Knoxes interpret as suggestive.
But in fact it is not. In my opinion the same pillowcase physical scenario also contains evidence of the contrary.
For example the absence of any bloody hand print on Meredith's body, it's evidence suggesting that the person who left the palm print on the pillow is not the same person who placed it under the body. Try to lift a body and place a pillow under it while having a bloody hand, see if you don't leave traces on the body.
And also imagine, Guede "raping" (touching, grabbing) a body wihout leaving any bloody fingerprint or blood smear on it.