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

[GreyFox]

Sounds more like the police were feeding them some lies with the hopes of getting some lies back. Rather than look for real evidence of a breakin/murder, they tried to trap two kids in their words. Lazy police work is what it really is!!

 

[js202]

Not sure what kind of 'proof' you're looking for.

Knife found in possession of suspect consistent with fatal wound on victim.

Knife has DNA of victim on blade.

Knife has DNA from suspect on handle.

No innocent explanation for how this came to be, except lame and false 'cooking accident' alibi floated by suspect.

It's just another example of a couple of idiots thinking they can outsmart detectives and get away with murder.

Nothing special about this.

The very tests that were ordered for the Nencini trial were unable to duplicate the results that Stefanoni cooked up. In other words, retesting did not find Ms. Kercher's DNA on the blade. Do you have an explanation for this? Do you care?

This, of course, is entirely aside from the prosecution's utterly stupid justification that Knox would have carried such a knife for protection in the first place (wouldn't her BF of five or six days, "knife boy", kindly have provided her a more practical one?). It is also aside from the rampant nonsense - new to the Nencini trial - Crini pulled out of his rectum, arguing that the kitchen knife matched the bloodstain on the bed.

Only thoroughgoing fools have bought this sort of nonsense, bent on feeding the high they derive from spreading hatred online.

 

[proudfootz]

Can you please outline those lies?

I tried two years ago to find these claimed lies and could find only 13 were ever claimed by guilters. Harry Rag wrote a list of ten of them, and an obscure guilter blog (now gone) added another three.

None of the lies claimed concern the period of time when the postal police arrived (you do realize they were the postal police don't you?)

On analysis, none of the lies bear out. I can post the list if you want.

Truly, if you have any other claimed lies, we're all ears. My bet is that you will simply make the assertion/allegation, and chicken out when you realize you're just passing on the guilter propaganda.

My, you seem awfully bent out of shape.

'Guilters'? If we're going to get down to that level we may as well use loaded terms like 'Groupies'!

...and 'chicken out' - someone earlier complained of 'playground behavior'. You'd better shape up or you'll be reprimanded.



Start with the story Knox floated to police about the locked door.

 

[Bill Williams]

My, you seem awfully bent out of shape.

'Guilters'? If we're going to get down to that level we may as well use loaded terms like 'Groupies'!

...and 'chicken out' - someone earlier complained of 'playground behavior'. You'd better shape up or you'll be reprimanded.



Start with the story Knox floated to police about the locked door.

Please read the Massei report.

If you are accusing Knox of "lying" about Meredith's door locking habits, you literally have no idea what's what.

You do not answer questions. You just disrupt.

 

[js202]

Start with the story Knox floated to police about the locked door.

Of course, this sort of nonsense only floats with knaves, gadflies, and fools. Mere rationalists demand scientifically sound evidence as a prerequisite to throwing young persons with fine backgrounds into prison and tossing away the key.

 

[GreyFox]

proudfootz wrote: "They did have business looking for one of the murder weapons at the apartment of the suspect."

Of course they did.

And the reason they went for the knife in Raff's kitchen is beacause Knox blurted, out of the blue, in her note to the police,

"After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele's hand, but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish."


(you know, the note where she couldn't clearly remember anything, except for this one curious fact)

Damn right they're going to go looking for a knife in Raffy's kitchen.

Do you carry a butchers knife in your purse for protection ? Just trying to understand why you keep trying to make that piece of the puzzle fit. Hello ,It don't go there !!!

Also ...the experts made it clear (C&V) the statement that the victims DNA was on the knife is utter BS. Experts in this last trial also could not find the victims DNA either. Get caught up and then we can discuss why Steff don't want to show her homework.

 

[Bill Williams]

Sollecito was found along with Knox at the murder scene when police arrived.

Due to their odd behavior and nonsensical lies they made themselves rather obvious suspects.

No needlessly complex, idiotic, and bizarre conspiracy need be imagined to explain why police might investigate a little further.

proudfootz,

You have just tacitly acknowledged that they were suspects in fact on 2 November. According to Italian law, suspects must be provided a lawyer; they cannot refuse one. Thus the authorities failed to perform one of their central duties. Thank you for making a portion of the PI case.

Proudfootz represents well the guilters' dilemma.

Knox and Sollecito were obvious suspects right from Nov 2.

Yet at interrogation starting 11 pm Nov 5, the slate had been inexplicably wiped clean. Despite senior police saying that they had already solved this case with behavioural observation, before the interrogation and before the evidence came in pointing to Rudy.....

..... suddenly, Knox (particularly) had to be suddenly not a suspect any more. Because what they need is for Amanda to suddenly blurt out Lumumba's name, with NO pressure or even any inclination from the cops that she was involved.

And Nencini has booted this by saying in his motivations report that the confessions ruled inadmissible by the ISC are key to understanding this crime.

Proudfootz has caught the guilters' 'flu. Amanda has to be seen as suspicious except when she's conveniently not seen as suspicious. At stake is whether or not she required a lawyer and a competent translator (not the mediator Donnino said she was) at interrogation.

 

[Desert Fox]

Do you carry a butchers knife in your purse for protection ? Just trying to understand why you keep trying to make that piece of the puzzle fit. Hello ,It don't go there !!!

For self defense, knives are a bad idea. They are dangerous to you and not effective for defending you unless you are a skilled knife fighter. Even then, I would actually prefer a baton (or gun.)

 

[proudfootz]

The very tests that were ordered for the Nencini trial were unable to duplicate the results that Stefanoni cooked up. In other words, retesting did not find Ms. Kercher's DNA on the blade. Do you have an explanation for this? Do you care?

Why should I care if some online amateur detective wants to smear serious professional forensic experts as 'cooking up' results?

It was my impression the sample that exhibited the victim's DNA was used in the trial.

You're saying this same sample was retested at one of the appeals?

Or was that a different sample?

... cooked up ... utterly stupid ...rampant nonsense ... pulled out of his rectum... thoroughgoing fools ... feeding the high they derive from spreading hatred online ...

The person I see spreading hatred at this moment is you.

 

[Vibio]

proudfootz, you want doors?

How about Raffles telling his dad that when they got back to the cottage the door to Filomena's room was "wide open".

Of course Knox tells us that the door was shut.

(as liars are want to do)

 

[acbytesla]

Making an unsupported claim is playground behavior & has no place in a court of law. Back to work, you.



Really? According to whom?

Some amateur online detectives?

Apparently the scientific findings were good enough for courts of law.

Or by 'court of law' you mean the internet forum?

Do you mean amateur online detectives like John Douglass?
Douglas a member of a FBI's Behavioral Sciences Unit (BSU) in 1977 where he taught hostage negotiation and applied criminal psychology at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia to new FBI special agents, field agents, and police officers from all over the United States. He created and managed the FBI's Criminal Profiling Program and was later promoted to unit chief of the Investigative Support Unit, a division of the FBI’s National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime

Douglas began interviewed serial killers and other violent sex offenders at various prisons. He interviewed some of the most notable violent criminals in recent history as part of the study, including David Berkowitz, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Charles Manson, Lynette Fromme, Arthur Bremer, Sara Jane Moore, Edmund Kemper, James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan, Dennis Rader, Richard Speck, Donald Harvey, and Joseph Paul Franklin. He used the information gleaned from these interviews in the book Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives, followed by the Crime Classification Manual (CCM). Douglas later received two Thomas Jefferson Awards for academic excellence from the University of Virginia for his work on the study.

What did this guy say about the Amanda Knox case?

Two people [were] convicted that should have never been convicted. The media pictured Amanda as a cold-blooded murderer. Frankly, I was surprised that they were charged. I was surprised by the conviction. The appeal is wrong. It’s wrong because of the lack of concrete evidence. No forensic evidence, no behavioral evidence. Nothing points to their guilt. They’ve got nothing.

 

[proudfootz]

Please read the Massei report.

If you are accusing Knox of "lying" about Meredith's door locking habits, you literally have no idea what's what.

You do not answer questions. You just disrupt.

I see - you don't want to discuss it.

 

[js202]

It was my impression the sample that exhibited the victim's DNA was used in the trial.

I am quite sure Nencini vastly preferred the original results, yes.

As both Chris Halkides and I have pointed out to you, both C&V - unlike Stefanoni, serious scientists with serious credentials - and the scientists appointed to duplicate the test for the Nencini trial *did not find Ms. Kercher's DNA on the blade of the knife.* Full stop.

Do the research.

 

[Vibio]

Oh great, a quote from John Douglass.

Now I'll pull up one from Alan Dershowitz....

 

[proudfootz]

Of course, this sort of nonsense only floats with knaves, gadflies, and fools.

Still getting off on spreading hate, I see.

Mere rationalists demand scientifically sound evidence as a prerequisite to throwing young persons with fine backgrounds into prison and tossing away the key.

This has nothing to do with the case under discussion.

Three people were convicted in a court of law on the basis of evidence presented and debated by reputable lawyers in front of experienced judges.

 

[proudfootz]

I am quite sure Nencini vastly preferred the original results, yes.

As both Chris Halkides and I have pointed out to you, both C&V - unlike Stefanoni, serious scientists with serious credentials - and the scientists appointed to duplicate the test for the Nencini trial *did not find Ms. Kercher's DNA on the blade of the knife.* Full stop.

Do the research.

So the answer is 'no, they didn't test the same sample', then?

Your claims collapse in a heap of innuendo.

 

[js202]

Still getting off on spreading hate, I see.

You are debating dishonestly, here, ignoring, pell mell, numerous posts which have demolished your points. Given that this is a very serious matter, both for the persons directly involved, as well as for the cause of justice, it is, at a minimum, shameless behavior.

Address the points that have been made to you. Kwill and Chris Halkides are correct. You are wrong.

 

[proudfootz]

Oh great, a quote from John Douglass.

Now I'll pull up one from Alan Dershowitz....

Yes, I was unaware that Douglass attended the proceedings and heard all the evidence.

 

[proudfootz]

proudfootz, you want doors?

How about Raffles telling his dad that when they got back to the cottage the door to Filomena's room was "wide open".

Of course Knox tells us that the door was shut.

(as liars are want to do)

Maybe it was open and shut - like the case against the killers.

 

[js202]

So the answer is 'no, they didn't test the same sample', then?

Your claims collapse in a heap of innuendo.

What are you talking about? C&V both examined the methodology and the results of the original tests, and attempted to duplicate the results. They tore apart the methodology and were unable to duplicate the results.

Scientists appointed for the Nencini trial were unable to reproduce Stefanoni's results. In other words, *they did not find Ms. Kercher's DNA on the blade*.

Just whom do you think this sophistry of yours is fooling?