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

[Bill Williams]

A Youtube was created for this issue long ago.


One wonders how anyone at CNN could have made that mistake, even the most ferocious bunnies have been running away like scalded vermin from that Daily Mail article and pic for years now.

Can anyone think of a recent article or PMF/TMJK/False Wiki post where this mistake was made? It would be nice to know who the CNN guys were cribbing from for their 'guilt perspective' news or if they just came across the Daily Mail article by googling and made the error on their own. Even that would be unlikely as the archived Daily Mail article doesn't include the picture anymore which is why I linked the wayback machine version above.

It is quite the comment, isn't it, when a major media outlet makes an error that not even Edward McCall would make.

Gives me the willies, and does not bode well for any semblance of sanity coming to this thing soon.

 

[anglolawyer]

You're right. I failed to omit not mentioning it. And it must have had an effect because Massei failed to omit not mentioning it.....

Oh never mind.

Seriously, such a thing as the showing of that film in closing argument is unthinkable here. Without being in any way anglocentric, that's a clue.

 

[Kaosium]

Is there any evidence of such a clean up?

It is of a little weight that Meredith's blood is mixed only with Amanda's especially in Filomena's room and in the hallway.

What makes you think that luminol hit in Filomena's room (or the hallway for that matter) was blood? Doesn't the fact they all tested negative for blood with TMB hold any weight? Does the fact Stefanoni omitted that from her comprehensive technical report, the RTIGF, and then lied about it in court hold any weight?

In other words why would anyone still allow the prosecution the assumption that they were blood when they tried to hide the test that falsified it and lied about doing it in court? Stefanoni's own testimony (p.177--27 of the PDF) on TMB tests (in general) was this:

GIUDICE Però laddove è negativo mi pare di capire che lascia abbastanza convinti del fatto che non lo sia?

RIPOSTA Si, che non e sangue, che non lo sia, si.

JUDGE: However where the result is negative I’m given to understand that it’s almost certain that it is not [blood]?

ANSWER: Yes, it’s not blood, it is not, yes.​

The possibility the hits were diluted below the threshold of TMB but within the luminol detection range was a low probability scenario invented because they'd been caught hiding the negative TMBs and lying about them in court. If you think on it every test result can be 'hypothesized' away like this, it is most certainly not strong evidence of those hits being blood, the strong evidence on this issue is with the negative TMBs--which is why they hid them and lied about it.


As for the 'only' DNA profiles being Amana and Meredith's, what are you basing that remark on? Wouldn't you need to have seen the totality of the data collected to make that argument? This is part of why the EDF's are so crucial in cases like these where the prosecution can cherry-pick what data they want to show and withhold what they do not want anyone to see without consequence.

The sink DNA is of no weight at all, particularly the way it was collected.

Here's another guy with FBI experience, Jim Clemente, making that same point. His arguments regarding prosecution misconduct and the condition of the crime scene are very relevant to the luminol hits as well.

Did they do luminol in Meredith's room?

If they did it's not in the crime scene videos and I've not seen or heard anything about it. The reason for that may be there's no reason to suspect there was a clean-up at the scene, and a number of reasons to think there wasn't, so it may not have been done (initially) by the Polizia Scentifica for that reason.

 

[Grinder]

Yes, there's a source, but it's not as if quoting it did a lot of good!!!!! Both you and AngloLawyer are trying to say it's not saying what it says, or that there's something else in play.

Why quote sources, then?

Long ago I told you that since Massei's opinion is that the kids are guilty, I'm not much into his opinions.

I use Massei for information. I will use it less as we are finally given the underlying documents, etc.

You take his motivations, which you totally disagree with the conclusion, and pick certain statements as gospel. I BELIEVE that is ridiculous, just as taking the conversations in the police as reported by Follain as anything but fiction.

You're idea that if someone that thinks they are guilty also thinks something you agree with makes the latter more powerful or legitimate doesn't hold water, or wine.

 

[Desert Fox]

Long ago I told you that since Massei's opinion is that the kids are guilty, I'm not much into his opinions.

I use Massei for information. I will use it less as we are finally given the underlying documents, etc.

You take his motivations, which you totally disagree with the conclusion, and pick certain statements as gospel. I BELIEVE that is ridiculous, just as taking the conversations in the police as reported by Follain as anything but fiction.

You're idea that if someone that thinks they are guilty also thinks something you agree with makes the latter more powerful or legitimate doesn't hold water, or wine.

I will say that I do like using a hostile source, as long as you are not misquoting like a creationist, is a useful tool.

 

[Bill Williams]

Long ago I told you that since Massei's opinion is that the kids are guilty, I'm not much into his opinions.

I use Massei for information. I will use it less as we are finally given the underlying documents, etc.

You take his motivations, which you totally disagree with the conclusion, and pick certain statements as gospel. I BELIEVE that is ridiculous, just as taking the conversations in the police as reported by Follain as anything but fiction.

You're idea that if someone that thinks they are guilty also thinks something you agree with makes the latter more powerful or legitimate doesn't hold water, or wine.

In marriage counselling, couples are told never to bring up the past.

Long ago I told you that Massei's opinion was that the kids were guilty, and that guilters used to make very general comments about how Massei found them guilty for this reason, or for that reason, or for some osmotic reason.

Then they'd make reference to "all the other evidence" that suggested the kids were guilty.... except that when you read Massei, those reasons are not inside.

One is psychopathology. Before I have both the British AND the American empires descend upon me for the use of that term, it is a good, one word summary of all the psychological maladies guilters assign to Knox, to her parents, to her supporters and friends... or have you not been on the hates sites lately.

They continue to say that Massei found them guilty, and then go on about non-existent mixed-blood, mythical bad relations between Knox/Kercher... and all sorts of other non-evidence which, when added up osmotically, is supposed to indicate guilt....

All the while falling back on the judges who have actually convicted the pair, and HAVE NOT cited those things.

It's fairly simple. I patently do NOT take what Massei says as gospel. That is something you assert while missing the point of why I read and quote him. I DO take it that he said what he said. And others not only do that, they assume he said things he never said, in fact, decided against after hearing about it in court.

 

[Kaosium]

It is quite the comment, isn't it, when a major media outlet makes an error that not even Edward McCall would make.

Gives me the willies, and does not bode well for any semblance of sanity coming to this thing soon.

I wonder if they just used something from someone who hasn't followed the case very closely the past five or so years? That picture when first released (and for some time afterward) fooled a number of people into thinking Amanda had showered in a blood-soaked bathroom, I believe I recall Judy Bacharach of Vanity Fair was one of them.

 

[Desert Fox]

I wonder if they just used something from someone who hasn't followed the case very closely the past five or so years? That picture when first released (and for some time afterward) fooled a number of people into thinking Amanda had showered in a blood-soaked bathroom, I believe I recall Judy Bacharach of Vanity Fair was one of them.

Glad I missed that then . . . .Then again I am pretty careful with the media already.

 

[Samson]

I wonder if they just used something from someone who hasn't followed the case very closely the past five or so years? That picture when first released (and for some time afterward) fooled a number of people into thinking Amanda had showered in a blood-soaked bathroom, I believe I recall Judy Bacharach of Vanity Fair was one of them.

But that picture clearly supports the revisionist Raffaele who is being instructed by his attorney to dissociate, find odd behaviour that morning. All is conjecture, but I find the re-emergence curious. There were 6000 plus comments, so many viewers.

 

[Bill Williams]

But that picture clearly supports the revisionist Raffaele who is being instructed by his attorney to dissociate, find odd behaviour that morning. All is conjecture, but I find the re-emergence curious. There were 6000 plus comments, so many viewers.

For the record, the "dissociation" thing is actually stale news. Raffaele writes about all this odd behaviour in his book. To keep Grinder happy, one day I will quote from the book, rather than simply assert that this is so.

Bongiorno's own statements about "separation" are mainly to acknowledge the reality that once wrongly convicted, Raffaele and Knox face completely different legal challenges ahead.

The rest is media invention. I remember when I joined in this whole thing circa August 2011, reading Peter Quennell's predictions that before Hellmann ruled that Raffaele would turn on Knox.

People have bee predicting that since Raffaele's arrest in 2007. Mignini was flummoxed why the guy did not "break" after six months in solitary, even before he himself was charged!

Raffaele gets tired of being asked about Amanda's behaviour, because that has nothing to do with him. So what, he found it odd? What's that got to do with his own innocence? What's that got to do with him always following it up that she, too, is innocent?

 

[Strozzi]

I hate to inflict this on you but I seem to have no other way to show you the truth.

Well, Rudy apparently spoke a few phrases in English that he absorbed watching a Count Dracula video. I listened to the video he made at the link that Dan posted just above that is hosted on YouTube. I heard him mimick "I Count Dracula. Come suck your blood". I wonder if he used that phrase when he burst in on Meredith?

Seriously, Rudy probably speaks some English words and phrases that he heard listening to English songs and watching English-language movies. That doesn't mean that he knows what the individual words mean or how to conjugate verbs. Or that he can comprehend a simple question in English.

To the English-speaker's ear, Italian is the most beautiful of languages. I imagine English sounds very harsh to Italians.

I guess I speak Italian because I can say or at least mimick: "Mama Mia. Ciao. arrivaderchi (sp?), spaghetti, Mina amore, Ferrari, biscotti, bebe, justica".

 

[Grinder]

A Youtube was created for this issue long ago.


One wonders how anyone at CNN could have made that mistake, even the most ferocious bunnies have been running away like scalded vermin from that Daily Mail article and pic for years now.

Can anyone think of a recent article or PMF/TMJK/False Wiki post where this mistake was made? It would be nice to know who the CNN guys were cribbing from for their 'guilt perspective' news or if they just came across the Daily Mail article by googling and made the error on their own. Even that would be unlikely as the archived Daily Mail article doesn't include the picture anymore which is why I linked the wayback machine version above.

I knew videos had been made but not by Amanda's or Raf's team.

If they would make a two minute video showing the current CNN story with the pink bathroom and then show the real picture, move on the impossible window and the Ch. 5 demo and maybe one other factoid meme and then promote it. Having Amanda promote it would give it reach and as I said the other networks would love to smack CNN.

 

[Desert Fox]

For the record, the "dissociation" thing is actually stale news. Raffaele writes about all this odd behaviour in his book. To keep Grinder happy, one day I will quote from the book, rather than simply assert that this is so.

Bongiorno's own statements about "separation" are mainly to acknowledge the reality that once wrongly convicted, Raffaele and Knox face completely different legal challenges ahead.

The rest is media invention. I remember when I joined in this whole thing circa August 2011, reading Peter Quennell's predictions that before Hellmann ruled that Raffaele would turn on Knox.

People have bee predicting that since Raffaele's arrest in 2007. Mignini was flummoxed why the guy did not "break" after six months in solitary, even before he himself was charged!

Raffaele gets tired of being asked about Amanda's behaviour, because that has nothing to do with him. So what, he found it odd? What's that got to do with his own innocence? What's that got to do with him always following it up that she, too, is innocent?

I bet you that he at least thinks that if he just lied and said he woke up with her gone that he would have avoided all of it.

 

[Dan O.]

Can you give me the original Italian and I will have it human translated.

Here is the Italian from pages 96/97 of Filomena's testimony 2009-02-07:

DOMANDA – Va bene. Senta si ricorda i punti luce delle vostre camere fissi e mobili?
RISPOSTA – Le lampade? Allora di tutta la casa?
DOMANDA – No, delle vostre case.
RISPOSTA – Okay. Io avevo sul comodino e sulla scrivania due abajour, Laura in camera sua aveva una lampada di carta di riso a mò di abajour, Amanda ne aveva uno sul comodino e Meredith ne aveva un’altra mi pare vicino al letto.
DOMANDA – Scusi, mi può ripetere mi sono distratta un attimo, quest’ultima.
RISPOSTA – Amanda ne aveva una sul comodino e Meredith se non sbaglio ne aveva una vicino al letto.

From the Google translation these questions had the tone of the defense attorney trying to clear up the lamp issue. I was surprised to find that they are from the assistant prosecutor introducing the lamp issue with this witness. The section that roto already translated is a page or two further down and still by Ms Commode.

 

[Grinder]

What makes you think that luminol hit in Filomena's room (or the hallway for that matter) was blood? Doesn't the fact they all tested negative for blood with TMB hold any weight? Does the fact Stefanoni omitted that from her comprehensive technical report, the RTIGF, and then lied about it in court hold any weight?

I do believe that the first reports were that it was blood and many here have speculated that the booties of the ICSI or the police moved the blood into F's room. If you say that this was some of the misdiagnosed substances, I say all the more reason to do videos dispelling this.

In other words why would anyone still allow the prosecution the assumption that they were blood when they tried to hide the test that falsified it and lied about doing it in court?

Because there was no video made by the defense

 

[Kaosium]

I do believe that the first reports were that it was blood and many here have speculated that the booties of the ICSI or the police moved the blood into F's room. If you say that this was some of the misdiagnosed substances, I say all the more reason to do videos dispelling this.

The DNA and whatever caused the luminol hits may not be related. It is perfectly possible for DNA of housemates to end up in a spot where luminol reacts and the three events (luminol hit, Amanda's DNA deposit, Meredith's DNA deposit) not to have happened at the same time. Conversely it's also possible that Polizia Scientifica forensic technicians may have transferred Amanda and Meredith's DNA from the hallway (or elsewhere in the cottage) where they lived to the spot on Filomena's floor at some time by tramping around from room to room without changing their booties.

At any rate, that also goes for the less likely scenario where that hit is blood. Even if that's Amanda's DNA mixed in Meredith's blood in Filomena's room, after all the tramping around in that cottage and leaving it to ferment for six weeks and come back employing even less stringent procedures there's certainly no reason to think that deposit was the result of the murder and not the dozens of people walking around the murder scene during the discovery and the initial (and only valid) forensic investigation.

Because there was no video made by the defense

LOL!

 

[Bill Williams]

I bet you that he at least thinks that if he just lied and said he woke up with her gone that he would have avoided all of it.

.... and to be boringly repetitive, Raffaele had six months in solitary to mull this over - before he was charged. I don't think it was out of any sense of nobleness... my view is that he does not know how to lie.

He tried it once with the "pricking the finger" thing, and that was a dreadful excuse for lying.

It's not in his DNA. I know, because that was part of Stefanoni's report about the bra-clasp hook. There were four profiles found, all male-haplotypes - two of them were liars, two weren't. It's in the DNA.

I have to go now to get a cite for Grinder. He'll be all over me like a cheap suit for this assertion.

 

[Desert Fox]

.... and to be boringly repetitive, Raffaele had six months in solitary to mull this over - before he was charged. I don't think it was out of any sense of nobleness... my view is that he does not know how to lie.

And he thinks Amanda is strange. . . .I think she can fib at least a little

 

[Poppy1016]

I have a question. Is the same defense team filing the appeal to the supreme court? If so, are they getting assistance from any stateside lawyers? It seems to me that a very forceful appeal is needed.

 

[RWVBWL]

I bet you that he at least thinks that if he just lied and said he woke up with her gone that he would have avoided all of it.

.... and to be boringly repetitive, Raffaele had six months in solitary to mull this over - before he was charged. I don't think it was out of any sense of nobleness... my view is that he does not know how to lie.
<snip>

As I'm a male,
I wonder how many of you other guys would lie and cover for a gal that you just started bangin' for only a few days who was accused of a horrible, bloody room-mate murder that has shaken up the town you live in?

My view is why lie and cover-up
for some goofy, odd-ball foreign chick

if you are gonna graduate from college in 2 weeks?!?

Solitary confinement for not just a day or 2, but for 6 MONTHS?!?

Raff should have and would have turned on Amanda Knox in a hard-on's heartbeat,
for no piece of ^^^ is worth SOLITARY, especially after only a week of hittin' it!

My opinion only, girls!

Hang on a sec,
F^^^ that!

How many of you galz would risk jail time and cover-up for a dude
(who was suspected of brutally knifin' his room mate to death),
who was your 1st real luver whom you had just started havin' intimate encounters with?

None of ya, I'd bet!
MOO...
RW