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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vibio said:
HotNostril:



Re: Knox's DNA in the murder room.



In the majority of murder cases there are no biological traces left by the aggressor. That Knox's DNA was not found in the murder room even with a struggle means nothing.



I posted an example of a recent bloody murder in the US: none of his DNA at the scene... no blood on him.
Click to expand...


I believe that.

I've read much about the CSI Effect and it's exploitation by defense and the prosecution (but far more by the defense)
My 15 year son is taking a crime scene investigation course at the local college. I've watched a few of the lectures online.
I've read several chapters of "Crime Scene Investigation" by Fish, Miller and Braswell.

Everything I've read supports what you just said.
 
Suffolk Skeptic said:
Hello

First, thanks to everyone for an interesting and informative thread. I have been reading it for well over a year.

I have registered because I am in discussions on another forum and the issue of the possible forensic test on the glass has arisen. I am aware that there is a simple test which could establish that the glass was broken from the inside or outside, but that this was not carried out by the prosecution. It has been put to me that the defence should have done this test to protect their client and obviously this is right. I am aware that the prosecution were not terribly forthcoming with cooperation in the DNA tests, but I cannot find whether or not the defence attempted to carry out the test on glass and whether or not it was refused. I know that many defence motions were refused but I have trawled through a few sites without joy on this issue.

Can anyone help me on this issue? With source documents? I'm sorry if this has been covered earlier, I have read many many pages but can't remember if any details of why the test was not carried out was referred to. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Hi SS. I don't have the answer to your question (my guess would be 'no') but isn't the pro-guilt idea that the glass was broken by opening the pane and throwing a rock through it from the outer side to the inner side? That would yield the same result as a throw from outside in the garden. The glass would all end up differently distributed but that's another matter.
 
Suffolk Skeptic said:
Hello

First, thanks to everyone for an interesting and informative thread. I have been reading it for well over a year.

I have registered because I am in discussions on another forum and the issue of the possible forensic test on the glass has arisen. I am aware that there is a simple test which could establish that the glass was broken from the inside or outside, but that this was not carried out by the prosecution. It has been put to me that the defence should have done this test to protect their client and obviously this is right. I am aware that the prosecution were not terribly forthcoming with cooperation in the DNA tests, but I cannot find whether or not the defence attempted to carry out the test on glass and whether or not it was refused. I know that many defence motions were refused but I have trawled through a few sites without joy on this issue.

Can anyone help me on this issue? With source documents? I'm sorry if this has been covered earlier, I have read many many pages but can't remember if any details of why the test was not carried out was referred to. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Hi Suffolk and thanks for posing. I'm a little confused "test on the glass"? What kind of test are you talking about? DNA? fingerprint? To see which side the glass was broken? Inside or out?

What's clear to me is the police and the authorities prevented Amanda's investigators from doing tests in the actual cottage entirely.
 
Suffolk Skeptic said:
Hello

First, thanks to everyone for an interesting and informative thread. I have been reading it for well over a year.

I have registered because I am in discussions on another forum and the issue of the possible forensic test on the glass has arisen. I am aware that there is a simple test which could establish that the glass was broken from the inside or outside, but that this was not carried out by the prosecution. It has been put to me that the defence should have done this test to protect their client and obviously this is right. I am aware that the prosecution were not terribly forthcoming with cooperation in the DNA tests, but I cannot find whether or not the defence attempted to carry out the test on glass and whether or not it was refused. I know that many defence motions were refused but I have trawled through a few sites without joy on this issue.

Can anyone help me on this issue? With source documents? I'm sorry if this has been covered earlier, I have read many many pages but can't remember if any details of why the test was not carried out was referred to. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...


The prosecution theory allows for the glass to have been broken from the outer side of the glass, but from inside the room by pulling the window in on the vertical axis and throwing it through that way. Of course that makes the broken glass pattern that was left at the scene rather impossible to achieve, which is why they never offered a demonstration, they just pretended anything could happen with broken glass and that explains it 'adequately.'
 
HotNostril said:
I am familiar with Reid.

It was my lame attempt at being funny in reference to Miranda.

The one thing I do have control over is my mouth. I have no trouble keeping it shut.

I think my issue is more about her lack of accountability and remorse for what happened to PL as a result of her running her own mouth.
Click to expand...

You're right. You do have control over your mouth yet false confessions and statements is the biggest cause of wrongful convictions. Makes you go hmmmm.

Certainly Amanda made a mistake in trying to answer the police's questions without an attorney and particularly in a language she barely knew. That demonstrates how naive and ignorant she was, not her guilt.
 
There is a question I would like to ask Hotnostril. You constantly attack Amanda for lying. When accusing Amanda of lying the following should be remembered about the guilters :-

1) The guilters slavishly defend corrupt prosecutors who told numerous lies.
2) The guilters gave glowing five star star reviews of John Kercher's book Meredith which was riddled with falsehoods.
3) The guilters have recently createded a pro guilt wiki riddled with lies.
4) The guilters often spread lies on the internet eg female thumbprints were found on Meredith's neck, Meredith's room was cleaned up, Amanda's DNA on the bra clasp.

In view of the above is it not hypocritical for guilters such as yourself to accuse Amanda of lying?
 
Last edited:
I don't know why anyone makes anything of the 3am phone call? Are people suggesting that she only called because she was feeling scared and upset about being involved in a violent murder? If Amanda was up all night following being involved in the murder, why didn't she call home at an earlier time when she knew they would be up?
 
souldonut said:
Amazing article. Many great quotes, but this stood out, referring to Curatolo:

"Heroin's not a big deal when it's for a witness, but pot is a big deal when it's the suspect. Pot turns two kids who have never had any history of violence or aggression or antisocial behaviour into psychotic sex predators," she says bitterly. "Like that's convenient."
- Amanda Knox
Click to expand...

Vibio said:
"What did Amanda say that she couldn't have known without being there for the murder. If you can find something, than I'll quit and say you won."

Among other things.... the scream:

Rudy Guede: "I was in the bathroom, in the bathroom maybe five minutes. So, I really had to take this ****, but then I heard a scream, but let me tell you, a really loud scream, so loud that according to me, if anyone was passing by, nearby, they would have heard this scream, because she screamed so loud...

Amanda Knox: "... at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and as I was scared I plugged up my ears."
Click to expand...

When a woman is murdered in a TV show or movie, nearly every scriptwriter has her scream just before the fatal blow. It did not take special knowledge for Amanda to imagine Meredith screamed before being murdered.

Rudy is the only person alive that may really know if Meredith did scream before the knife was plunged into her throat. But he may not be telling the truth. A loud scream is a convenient explanation for what alerted him when he was sitting on the toilet listening to his iPod. Rudy told his tale after Amanda's scream story was already in the news.

What Amanda's "confessions" don't include are the kind of details she would not know unless she was there when Meredith was murdered. In fact, her statements are almost devoid of details of any kind.
 
HotNostril said:
Any other DNA found on the clasp is irrelevant as it wasn't sourced to a suspect.
Click to expand...

So how did the other DNA get there, are you suggesting innocent transfer from people she had been in contact with? Is innocent transfer also not possible with Raffaele, they had spent time together that day prior to Meredith getting dressed?
 
acbytesla said:
You're right. You do have control over your mouth yet false confessions and statements is the biggest cause of wrongful convictions. Makes you go hmmmm.



Certainly Amanda made a mistake in trying to answer the police's questions without an attorney and particularly in a language she barely knew. That demonstrates how naive and ignorant she was, not her guilt.
Click to expand...


Can you quantify "a language she barely knew" for me please.

And remind me again what time the interpreter arrived & brought her a cappuccino?
 
differential equation

Vibio said:
HotNostril:

Re: Knox's DNA in the murder room.

In the majority of murder cases there are no biological traces left by the aggressor. That Knox's DNA was not found in the murder room even with a struggle means nothing.

I posted an example of a recent bloody murder in the US: none of his DNA at the scene... no blood on him.
Click to expand...
This argument ignores the elephants in the room. Guede's bloody handprint, shoe prints, and DNA. It ignores the clothes he discarded. It is the differential of evidence of Guede in the room versus the other two that should give everyone pause. Why wouldn't there be an equal amount evidence of Amanda and Raffaele? The clothes that Amanda wore that night are known. So are the shoes that the pair owned. if, as the prosecution alleges Amanda had a hand in restraining Meredith, there would probably be DNA transfer, as I have discussed on many occasions with cites to the literature.
 
Last edited:
bolint said:
that the murderer was black.
Click to expand...

Bolint alleges, above, that Amanda said the murderer was black.

Actually, Bolint, you got that wrong. Amanda did not say "the murderer was black" or words to that effect.

She did not identify the murderer. The police did that; they told her it was Lumumba. They jumped to that conclusion because they misinterpreted her "see you later" text to her boss to mean that she met with him that evening, and as Amanda repeatedly denied it they were certain she was lying to cover up for him. The police concluded that he killed Meredith (it was a sex crime, they believed) and told her he is the killer.
 
Last edited:
Welshman said:
There is a question I would like to ask Hotnostril. You constantly attack Amanda for lying. When accusing Amanda of lying the following should be remembered about the guilters :-



1) The guilters slavishly defend corrupt prosecutors who told numerous lies.

2) The guilters gave glowing five star star reviews of John Kercher's book Meredith which was riddled with falsehoods.

3) The guilters have recently createded a pro guilt wiki riddled with lies.

4) The guilters often spread lies on the internet eg female thumbprints were found on Meredith's neck, Meredith's room was cleaned up, Amanda's DNA on the bra clasp.



In view of the above is it not hypocritical for guilters such as yourself to accuse Amanda of lying?
Click to expand...


I would appreciate not being labeled or lumped. I am not affiliated with some sort of Get Amanda Knox Internet Gang.

1. I have never discussed the prosecutors in this case.

2. Never read the book

3. Never been to the website

4. Never heard such claims. I am unaware of any thumbprint. I've never read anyone claim Meredith's room was cleaned up.... (Aside from the blood soaked towels) Never heard of Knox DNA on the clasp.
 
HotNostril said:
Waiting To Be Heard?

Seriously?
Click to expand...

What other source do we have?

ETA I am in at least as good a position to assess the reliability of her account as the judges of the court of Cassazione are to weigh the evidence of, say, Curatolo. I take the absence of properly supported contrary evidence, the circumstances surrounding the interrogation and the circumstances surrounding those circumstances into account in choosing to believe Amanda Knox over the cops and Mignini.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom