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

[kwill]

No, not necessarily.

Patrick Latko trial 2011:

""But while no DNA found matched Latko’s, Shill argued the circumstantial evidence links him to the deaths of the mother and son in their South Madison Avenue home."

"But not a drop of blood was found on Latko or his belongings, argued public defender Kevin Moses.

“So there were 20 stab wounds, two slit throats....so whoever did this would've been a bloody mess,” Moses said to the jury."

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/...88e-b266-11e2-8658-001a4bcf887a.html?mode=jqm

---------------

In closing arguments earlier Wednesday, the defense began by claiming that the evidence in the fatal stabbings did not directly implicate Latko, 33, in the deaths.

But while no DNA found matched Latko’s, Chief Assistant Prosecutor Cary Shill argued the circumstantial evidence links him to the deaths of the mother and son in their South Madison Avenue home.

Is Latko “the unluckiest guy in the world? Or did he kill Ryan and Diana Patterson?” Shill asked.

Public defender Kevin Moses pointed out that not a drop of blood was found on Latko or his belongings.

“So there were 20 stab wounds, two slit throats ... so whoever did this would've been a bloody mess,” Moses said to the jury.

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/...e62-b29a-11e2-bdce-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=jqm

(Latko was found guilty on solid evidence... but DNA at the scene or blood on him? No.)

Exactly the point: Latko was found guilty on solid evidence. You use him to make the point that it's possible to murder people and not leave DNA or other physical evidence. Granted! But it's not possible to convict someone without some other "solid evidence."

In the Latko case:

The evidence consisted of numerous text messages Latko had sent to friends including one which stated that if he finds out who was criticizing him to his former girlfriend,
“they’re a dead man.”

It included a knife that belonged to Latko which tested positive for Ryan Patterson’s blood, and Latko’s cell phone, which was found in the Patterson’s home following the murders. It included surveillance footage of Latko changing his clothes little more than one half-hour after the murders had occurred . . .

source

That's pretty compelling evidence, yes? Where is the similar evidence against either Amanda or Raffaele? She got a noise ticket for a loud party. She participated in an April Fool's day prank. She wrote a short story. He owned a pocket knife. He liked manga comics. He's known to have watched a porn movie.

If you don't have DNA, you need something better than the victim told her friends that the suspect didn't use the toilet brush often enough.

 

[acbytesla]

The video uses clever cuts, misrepresents the climber (he's an expert climber and teaches rock climbing here in Italy), the climber conducts the climb in bright daylight rather than at night, the video is not shot from a distance so we can follow the climbers moves ...etc.

And the truth is Massei never claims in his motivations report that it is impossible to climb up to that window.

It's a non issue.

-------------------

"Also read, Ron Hendry. A reconstruction engineer who examined the glass evidence from the bedroom. "

This Ron Hendrey fellow examined the glass evidence? When was he in Italy? He visited the crime scene?

Please tell us how it went.

Read his book. He viewed the photographic evidence. He showed how the glass was scattered throughout the room and has been said before, little or no glass outside. He directs you to the chip out of the shutters from the rock.

The channel 5 documentary show with cameras how glass is scattered.

Next question.

 

[Vibio]

Uh Kwill...please follow the thread and the reason why I posted about Latko.

 

[acbytesla]

One issue is that the window could have been broken from the outside and still been staged so the test wouldn't prove anything. The window could have been broken by tossing the rock from the park area or they could have opened the window and thrown it from inside the room but through the outside of the glass.

You're right Grinder, They could have thought of everything. But then, how do you conclude that this was the result of staging?

 

[HotNostril]

Exactly the point: Latko was found guilty on solid evidence. You use him to make the point that it's possible to murder people and not leave DNA or other physical evidence. Granted! But it's not possible to convict someone without some other "solid evidence."



In the Latko case: source



That's pretty compelling evidence, yes? Where is the similar evidence against either Amanda or Raffaele? She got a noise ticket for a loud party. She participated in an April Fool's day prank. She wrote a short story. He owned a pocket knife. He liked manga comics. He's known to have watched a porn movie.



If you don't have DNA, you need something better than the victim told her friends that the suspect didn't use the toilet brush often enough.

can't explain away the bare very clear footprint on the bathmat. Let's say for the sake of argument it's Rudy's...how did it get there? Did he fly? It was obviously a naked foot covered in blood. Who cleaned up the other bare footprints going into the bathroom?

Are we to believe he showered? Where were his cloths and shoes when he showered? How did he move from A-B?

 

[Dan O.]

"photos reveal that prior to breaking the window, the rock first struck the inside edge of the exterior shutter, indicating it was thrown from outside......glass fracture examination of the window would prove this." -

I believe these are the marks on the inside of the inner shutter he talks about. This is from the Crime Scene video of November 2.

 

[Vibio]

Read his book. He viewed the photographic evidence.

Yeah I know. We have all viewed the photographic evidence. I'm curious to know: When was he in Italy? He visited the crime scene?



Question about that photo: who placed those blue circles there? May we see that in high rez? Thanks.

 

[Grinder]

Any other DNA found on the clasp is irrelevant as it wasn't sourced to a suspect.

What? You mean if that DNA was Kokomani's it wouldn't lead you to believe that Koko was in there with his buddy Rudy?

Truly that could be the most ridiculous statement ever made on this thread. That is directed at the statement not the person.

It's like not testing the semen because semen doesn't have a time stamp.

If the other DNAs match cops what would that say about the handling of the clasp? What if it matched a technician from Steffy's lab that had never been to the cottage? What if it matched a cop that wasn't there when it was collected on the 18th but had access to the evidence room? What if one matched another friend of Rudy or Koko's?

 

[anglolawyer]

Uh Kwill...please follow the thread and the reason why I posted about Latko.

If he follows closely enough he might notice you gave been asked several times to tell us how you think it went down. Still waiting .....

 

[Dan O.]

can't explain away the bare very clear footprint on the bathmat. Let's say for the sake of argument it's Rudy's...how did it get there? Did he fly? It was obviously a naked foot covered in blood. Who cleaned up the other bare footprints going into the bathroom?

Are we to believe he showered? Where were his cloths and shoes when he showered? How did he move from A-B?

How many times to I have to post this? You can find the discussion in this thread and several of the previous continuations.

 

[Vibio]

If he follows closely enough he might notice you gave been asked several times to tell us how you think it went down. Still waiting .....

And if you followed the thread you would have read my answer.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yeah I know. We have all viewed the photographic evidence. I'm curious to know: When was he in Italy? He visited the crime scene?

When were you there? You seem to have formed opinions without a personal inspection of the crime scene. Have you read Ron Hendry's analysis? If so, can you tell us what he says that you disagree with and why?

 

[acbytesla]

How many times to I have to post this? You can find the discussion in this thread and several of the previous continuations.

A few hundred more.

 

[HotNostril]

How many times to I have to post this? You can find the discussion in this thread and several of the previous continuations.





[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=4050[/qimg]

Sorry, I'm not reading the entire thread.
My questions were in response to another poster. If you don't care to answer, just scroll on by. My feelings won't be hurt.

 

[Bill Williams]

The video uses clever cuts, misrepresents the climber (he's an expert climber and teaches rock climbing here in Italy), the climber conducts the climb in bright daylight rather than at night, the video is not shot from a distance so we can follow the climbers moves ...etc.

And the truth is Massei never claims in his motivations report that it is impossible to climb up to that window.
It's a non issue.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have been making that point for two years. Massei never says the climb is either impossible or terribly difficult.

Massei also doesn't even get into a discussion on which is the easier way into the cottage for a burglar.

The mistake Massei makes is that he doesn't think the climber would go up three times.

Regardless of cuts in the video, that climber shows that to get the slats open, one need only go up at most twice. And twice is not difficult. The odds of being caught are low as the climber, at night, is in darkness and can jump down to seclusion if need be - something the illuminated balcony on the other side does not afford.

But thank you, thank you, thank you for this admission. Can you please tell Machiavelli that the climb is simply a non-issue, it is doable - despite what Kermit tried to show in his now long-since debunked powerpoints on the subject.

 

[Vibio]

When were you there? You seem to have formed opinions without a personal inspection of the crime scene. Have you read Ron Hendry's analysis? If so, can you tell us what he says that you disagree with and why?

(LOL)

I'm not claiming to be "a reconstruction engineer" who "examined the glass evidence from the bedroom".

 

[Kestrel]

One issue is that the window could have been broken from the outside and still been staged so the test wouldn't prove anything. The window could have been broken by tossing the rock from the park area or they could have opened the window and thrown it from inside the room but through the outside of the glass.

Throwing the rock from inside the room would result in a different pattern of glass fragments in the room than what was observed. It's also would be tricky to do this and not end up covered in broken glass.

AK and RS must have been in the magical suits they wore during the murder so the could hover in mid air and not leave any evidence of their presence.

 

[Grinder]

Oooh my mistake ... Cranberry scones and tea...that does sound like torture...

The good cop delivered the food and drink and the bad cop delivered the slaps to the head. Nothing unusual there, just move along.

 

[anglolawyer]

(LOL)

I'm not claiming to be "a reconstruction engineer" who "examined the glass evidence from the bedroom".

You are just dodging from one spot to another. You asked when Hendry visited Perugia but you cannot say which part of his analysis depends on a personal inspection. Why do you say he is 'claiming' to be anything? You imply he is bigging himself up. Is this where you lapse into ad hominem? That favourite guilter get-out?

I am not asking twice. I have you figured. You can't rebut Hendry. I am not interested in the insults of an anonymous internet nobody as a substitute for argument.

 

[Grinder]

Raffaele had spent time with Meredith that day, before she got dressed - this gives you any number of possible ways to transfer DNA to her clothing, to her body, to her bra-clasp. After leaving Raffaele and Amanda the first thing she picked up could have been her bra

If you spent time with a someone, do you thing it would be impossible to pick up a trace of their DNA?

Raf washes hands and dries them on a towel in the bathroom shared with Meredith or in the kitchen. Meredith uses the same towel for the same purpose and picks up a little DNA which she then transfers to the bra. No mystery.