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

[Strozzi]

. . . As for Machiavelli: he's by far the best and most informed poster here about this case.
Be that as it may: I do not agree 100% with everything he says.

Machiavelli is the best informed on Italian-English language, the PLE position, and Italian law and legal process. I really appreciate him for educating me on that.

His posts show he is poorly informed on evidence collection, digestion, DNA contamination and analysis, print analysis, luminal discoveries, knife issues including the bloody outline of the knife on the bed sheet. He errs fatally in behavior assumptions.

I hope he will write a book about his experience debating foreigners (non-Italians) on this and other sites. Maybe Yummiest will join in co-authoring it.

 

[Strozzi]

Delete (duplicate)

 

[lionking]

AmyStrange,

I believe the defense did bring up the TOD. anglolawyer posted a source for it a page or so back.

Why wasn't it the key argument if it was so strong? The defence obviously didn't think it was so strong. Why?

 

[kcoh]

lionking,

I do not know that it wasn't a key argument. Do you have a transcript of what the defense argued at trial so I can read it?

 

[acbytesla]

twice convicted killers. .

And this means what if they were wrongly convicted?

BTW. So were the West Memphis 3, the Central Park 5, Debra Milke, Ryan Ferguson and countless other.

This is a skeptics forum where people are expected to posit an argument and then demonstrate how it is true. Not make an assertion, like "there is a God? Or "global warming is a myth" and then leave it without posting evidence. You can expect that your assertions to be challenged here.

Why don't you try and actually prove something instead of taking a dump in the the punch bowl and then smile about it.

.

 

[Kaosium]

What do you think of the arguments that are presented on Websleuths? They are, for the most part, convinced that they are guilty and have argued that the prosecution has proven it. I think they are convincing. They often argue that the footprints detected by luminol belonged to Amanda and that it does not matter whether or not the bra clasp was contaminated because Sollecito's DNA was not supposed to be on it in the first place.

I've not posted at or read Webslueths in some time, it sounds like the quality of their analysis has deteriorated alarmingly. Those footprints in Amanda's room all tested negative for blood and there's no reason to think they were the result of the murder, one doesn't even look like her footprint. They're disconnected random footprints, the one going into Meredith's room is probably Meredith's, it's not like any of them could be matched to anyone, it's just a prosecution 'hypothesis.'

Raffaele's DNA could have gotten on the bra clasp any number of ways, the least likely is that's it's the only trace found of either of them in the murder room, and no reason to think he or Amanda was with Rudy Guede that night. Both were wrongfully arrested with Patrick Lumumba on bogus, irrelevant or mistaken information and trying to pretend they were still involved after the caught the guy who did it is shameless scapegoating of the victims of their bungled arrest.

For just about any murder there could be found stray DNA and unexplained luminol hits or spots on the carpet which don't indicate anything regarding who was involved in the actual murder. Especially if the scene has been closed down by forensic technicians after they were done with their work and in the process trashed the place. For those who've not perused the crime scene videos:

This is the condition of the hallway from when the murder was first discovered.

This is the condition of the hallway when they went back six weeks later.


Here's a video which shows the difference in the condition of the murder room between when the murder was first discovered and when they went back six weeks later. There's also a DNA expert giving her opinion of the value of that 'evidence.'

 

[AmyStrange]

-

There isn't evidence of later body moving. That's just the prosecutors story that he tells while trying to fit the students to the crime. All of the evidence is consistent with Rudy murdering Meredith very soon after she got home and leaving the cottage before 10PM.

Amanda doesn't have a key to Raffaele's apartment or shared front door. She would have to ring Raffaele to get back in so Raffaele would know that she went out. Raffaele is not going to risk spending the next 30 years in prison covering for a girl he just met two week earlier. If Raffaele knew that Amanda had returned to the cottage and is lying about it, he would cut a deal with the prosecutor today instead of risking more prison time.


If you want to see a false confession in action, check out the Ryan Ferguson case. I posted a link to the video in a thread here.

-

I already explained this in my OP. I've lived in apartment buildings with locked front doors, and it's relatively easy enough to jimmy it open for as long as 15 minutes when she left, which is how long Amanda may have been gone. Granted it's easier to get back into a locked building you are leaving for a few minutes than it is to get into a locked building without a key.

As far as Raffaele is concerned, it's possible that he dozed off for a couple of minutes. I don't believe Raffaele remembers her leaving and is not lying. There has to be an intent to lie, for something to be a lie, in my opinion.

As far as moving the body, he may not have moved it much if all he was doing was positioning her or searching around her for more money.

Like I said, it's just an opinion I have,

d

-

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the problem became more acute only after Mignini changed the TOD

I know, I ask that same question about the defense also. See, that's what I mean about thought provoking.

I can come up with many reasons, but none of them make sense to me. They must know something I don't, that's all I can say about that now. I'm still thinking about it,

Besides anglolawyer, my post address this question. With respect I think that you and lionking are drawing an inference that simply is not warranted.

 

[Strozzi]

. . . As for Machiavelli: he's by far the best and most informed poster here about this case.
Be that as it may: I do not agree 100% with everything he says.

Machiavelli is the best informed on Italian-English language, the PLE position, and Italian law and legal process. I really appreciate him for educating me on that.

His posts show he is poorly informed on evidence collection, digestion, DNA contamination and analysis, print analysis, luminal discoveries, knife issues including the bloody outline of the knife on the bed sheet. He errs fatally in behavior assumptions.

 

[RoseMontague]

Why wasn't it the key argument if it was so strong? The defence obviously didn't think it was so strong. Why?

I think several folks including me, have responded to your question.

 

[Samson]

The stomach content analysis argument predates the original trial, it was first brought forth by Raffaele's experts when they got the autopsy and it was my quoting on the conspiracy thread Massei's attempt to explain how it was possible for someone to eat at 6:00-6:30 and still have passed nothing to the duodenum by 11:45 that prompted Rolfe's first posts on the case, as that is outright impossible.

Duiring the Hellmann appeal the prosecution split, Comodi (who knows something about science and did the courtwork for the DNA etc) went with an earlier time of death, Mignini kept arguing for a later one as that's what's necessary to 'keep' Curatolo and the screams he moved to later in the night during the original trial so they'd line up with Curatolo. Just as he moved the time of death from 10:30 in Rudy's trial to 11:45 (with some help from Massei as Mignini didn't allow time for the murder to take place) in Raffaele and Amanda's trial.

It is yet to be seen what Nencini's court will decide on for time of death, but my guess it will be as early as possible given his comments after the trial regarding Joanna Popovic (~8:40) and Patrick's text message (~8:20) giving them both the 'night off' as he put it.

Do you think they do /will accept the 9 26pm cartoon in the motivation? If so there is quite a gap to fill in between 8 40 and 9 26. Amanda has been confirmed guilty carrying a knife. Will the report suggest she persuaded Raf to abandon the cartoon, meet up with Rudy, complete the murder, and get all the people and phones out of the house before 10pm. The phones seem necessary to be in human possession till 10 15.
I am thinking the motivation is quite constrained now, and a preemptive rebuttal can be formulated.

 

[Vibio]

His posts show he is poorly informed on ...

No. You're really quite wrong about that.

 

[Grinder]

Why wasn't it the key argument if it was so strong? The defence obviously didn't think it was so strong. Why?

Damn when dealing with the Italian legal system you've taken my core argument off the table. Lalli, the original coroner, stated in court that the time to move into the duodenum is 2 to 4 hours. That would put the very outside time to 10:30 if the dinner was not started until 6:30.

The theory of the late TOD developed well into the case as none of the witnesses came forward until month after the murder. The prosecution seemed to change their own much earlier time frame to fit Curatolo and Nara et al. and perhaps the defense was wary to fight for an obvious earlier time as they feared the prosecution were setting them up. Keep in mind I'm not allowed to use incompetence.

For me and many here EVERY piece of known evidence points to an early TOD. Nothing points to a late TOD except fitting in Curatolo and to a lesser extent the ear witnesses.

I wish that the defense would let us in on why they didn't pound the digestive evidence on top of the phone activity, the only witness that saw something at the time (Formica) even if it wasn't Rudy said it was about 10:20.

Perhaps they thought it was so obvious that the 11:30 TOD was ridiculous they didn't bother. It is inexplicable when incompetence is taken off the table.
​

Obviously no one here has a direct conduit to the defense attorneys to ask. You seem to be implying that somehow the analysis here on digestion and TOD are flawed. I told you that Lalli agrees with the 2-4 hours.

Do you think that the digestive evidence is somehow flawed? Do you think that she could have been alive past 10 pm?

 

[AmyStrange]

It's just an impression I get...

-

Besides anglolawyer, my post address this question. With respect I think that you and lionking are drawing an inference that simply is not warranted.

-

I'm not arguing with you Chris, I just personally don't get the impression that they are harping on it as much as I would like, because that's they only reason I can see why the the jurors don't take more notice of it, but that's just me,

d

-

 

[RandyN]

lane99, you have every right to come here, ask what you want and even ignore responses provided you remain within the MA. And you can do this without being insulted.

lionking,

Please try to stay on topic. AK/RS case is the topic BTW.

lane99 no one will ever insult you. Someone may however attack your faulty ...some might say idiotic argument though.

 

[Desert Fox]

As for the bra clasp, for starters, do you know how that clasp was detached from the bra? It's been at least a couple of weeks since we talked about that.

Is it even certain that the bra clasp came from the bra she was wearing that night?

 

[Vibio]

BTW. So were the West Memphis 3, the Central Park 5, Debra Milke, Ryan Ferguson and countless other.

But this is not one of those cases.

This case has been closely monitored all along by the US State Department. The spokesman for the State Department, after the first trial , stated that Knox got a fair trial.

The case has gone through a 3 step trial process.

This trial's procedures have been studied by the Supreme Court of Italy.

This trial cannot be compared to those listed above.

 

[kwill]

Machiavelli is the best informed on Italian-English language, the PLE position, and Italian law and legal process. I really appreciate him for educating me on that.

His posts show he is poorly informed on evidence collection, digestion, DNA contamination and analysis, print analysis, luminal discoveries, knife issues including the bloody outline of the knife on the bed sheet. He errs fatally in behavior assumptions.

Agree. Just the other day he was explaining about how DNA is a protein, which exposes a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the whole topic. He also knows nothing at all about norms for young women in the Pacific Northwest as compared to those in Perugia.

That said, he clearly has access to lots of knowledge I don't . . . it's just frustrating to sort out the times he's talking through his hat from the times he's on solid ground.

 

[Caper]

Grinder,

I guess what I am trying to say is that after reading the Massei report, it looked as if they were trying awfully hard to place Knox there without evidence and it did not matter to them if it made sense or not.

To me kcoh.... I watched a documentary before hand in PBS frontline about the Norfolk 4. IMO, that should be required viewing... Well for everyone. One you watch that and truly see how a prosecutor can just mentally destroy a person in an interrogation room.... You begin to understand what happened to Amanda... They could have made her confess the queen if England killed Meridith.

And then I come her and see just how much of the case against Amanda and RS revolves around what went on in those interrogation rooms.

If anyone hasn't seen the doc... Google "frontline the confessions"

 

[Desert Fox]

Would you include career FBI agent John Douglas amongst "some people"? He has put his name and considerable reputation behind his unequivocal belief that Knox and Sollecito are completely innocent.

What are your professional credentials with regard to the assessment of evidence collection, crime scene staging, and the like?

Doing some research on him, he has been criticized on some cases.