Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Magister]

As the thread has become lengthy once again, this is a continuation from part 10. For further reference, see also
Part 9, Part 8, Part 7, Part 6, Part 5, Part 4, Part 3, Part 2, and Part 1.

Posted By: zooterkin

If anyone on either defense team was supporting that conspiracy theory I would take a further look. But the trail as far as I followed it is consistent with a cat entering through the open bathroom window. The investigation dropped the downstairs long before Rudy was identified. There is no cause for an early conspiracy to cover up anything.

Here's an earlier post of mine. Frank Sfarzo reports that Bongiorno confirms human blood found in the downstairs apartment.......

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9759065&postcount=2254

 

[carbonjam72]

Thanks for the map link, very interesting.

If anyone on either defense team was supporting that conspiracy theory I would take a further look. But the trail as far as I followed it is consistent with a cat entering through the open bathroom window. The investigation dropped the downstairs long before Rudy was identified. There is no cause for an early conspiracy to cover up anything.

Guess I'll just agree to disagree.

The person that testified said that was not Rudy.





There is a map near the bottom of the page here: http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/

Click on the map to brows for more details.

Rudy has to have been somewhere from the time he killed Meredith, to the time he makes a call from her phone (assuming that's him). Meredith is dad by when? 9:20, something like that?

So, where was he? What's he doing? You could say he ran to the garden and just sat there until he made the calls and tosses the phones, but what supports the contention?

Presuming assumptions, and declaring them correct, isn't convincing, at least to me.

 

[Dan O.]

Here's an earlier post of mine. Frank Sfarzo reports that Bongiorno confirms human blood found in the downstairs apartment.......

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9759065&postcount=2254

I believe that is an imprecise report. My recollection is that a few of the samples showed human DNA. Finding human DNA is not proof that the blood was human.

 

[Desert Fox]

I support the respect of the law, and of truth. I am indifferent "the release of" this or that as topics taken in isolation.

Translation, I support everything judges that I like do. . . .

 

[carbonjam72]

If they were being smart, a representative sample from each scene would be analized first to help focus the later efforts. But we are talking about Italians.



I would expect this regardless of where the blood came from. A smart forensics team would collect substrate controls to better identify what profile is comming from the blood and what is comming from the surrounding environment. But these are Italians and there were never any substrate controls taken upstairs so there is no expectation for them to exist for downstairs.



This would depend on the circumstance that created the tracts. Do you have evidence that any of the downstairs profiles show such characteristics?



There are instant checks that could type the blood in minutes so it would depend on how long it took Stefanoni to realize that she should run them.

The results are suppressed. how is that a fair question to ask? Shouldn't the prosecution disclose the results before making an assumption either way?

Stefanoni is on video asking for a 'presumable semen' stain to be tested. What do you think she's referring to, and where is the result?

You don't want to consider the possibility that Rudy went downstairs, fine. But I think there's a lot to suggest he did, as has been bandied about the last few days on these pages.

Relying on the fact that the prosecution has refused to disclose evidence, and then saying, "look, there's no evidence", not very cricket.

 

[Desert Fox]

-


-

I'm not a believer in probable guilt, but this is really something (if only for the cause of justice) we should all be able to agree on, if we never agree on anything else.

I SUPPORT (IN MEMORY OF MEREDITH KERCHER):

1) The full release of the EDF files first, and then secondly, the standard operating procedures (SOPs), and any and all contamination snd corrective action files.

And I also personally SUPPORT

2) The opening of the alleged murder weapon and examined by someone other that Doctor Stefanoni, someone appointed by the ISC, or the ECHR (if possible),

In short, I'm willing to put my whole belief (that Raffaele and Amanda are probably innocent) on the line, because (especially) if they open the knife (and it's done by someone respected in the forensics field by both sides) and they find an abundant amount of blood and Meredith's DNA under there (subject to public review of all data, raw or otherwise --including a video of the whole procedure, and the EDFs), I'll believe it's more probable that they are guilty.

I really don't see any reason why anyone wouldn't support this, unless they're afraid they'll be proven wrong,

d

-

That the pro guilt side does not support full release speaks volumes

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

What Chris Mellas said is consistent with what Jason Gilder said and with What Carlo dalla Vedova said. The defense made multiple requests, and they have been crystal-clear in what they have said publicly. Comodi did not say that she did not understand; she said that the prosecution gets to decide what the defense can see. It is a shame that you don't put as much time into reforming discovery laws as you do into defending the indefensible.

You are making a claim about the existence of those "multiple times". Can you show where they are?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I've just looked for this book on Amazon.

And seen the reviews and the replies.

OMG

Yes, you see what happens when a cult of hysterical nitwits must contend with real science that undermines their sacred belief.

 

[Machiavelli]

Thank you for completely dodging the question in a way that is unmistakable to even a casual reader of this thread. Professor Dan Krane wrote, “The biggest concern that I personally have regarding this case is the refusal of the prosecution to provide the defense with a copy of the electronic data that underlies the DNA test results -- that is virtually unheard of world-wide today and it would be especially important to review that data in a case such as this which seems to involve such low level samples.”

I answered the question. Didn't dodge it. I said that I am indifferent to the release of data. It means that I only care about the rules and the principles for what concerns law. I have nothing against release of data I am completely favorable, as long as within the due process. But I am not going to expect data release under my conditions whenever I want or at any cist. I am not ready to use data release as an argument against a legitimate and fair process. A trial is not a scientific research, a trial is a decision making process; its main purpose is to come to a conclusion based on the facts presented, law and fair confrontation and logic. Once the purpose is satisfied the trial must be closed. The priority is not to satisfy remaining curiosity, unknowns, skeptics nor to collect perfect information. A trial is not a scientific discussion.

 

[js202]

Quoth Dick Nixon:

Translation, I support everything judges that I like do. . . .

"When the President does it, it's not illegal."

 

[Dan O.]

The results are suppressed. how is that a fair question to ask? Shouldn't the prosecution disclose the results before making an assumption either way?

Stefanoni is on video asking for a 'presumable semen' stain to be tested. What do you think she's referring to, and where is the result?

You don't want to consider the possibility that Rudy went downstairs, fine. But I think there's a lot to suggest he did, as has been bandied about the last few days on these pages.

Relying on the fact that the prosecution has refused to disclose evidence, and then saying, "look, there's no evidence", not very cricket.

It is my view that there is no reason for Rudy to go downstairs. It would be incredibly stupid to hang around the cottage containing a dead girl. The boys downstairs say the cat was injured and there was already blood in that apartment before they left for holiday. The tracts are consistent with the path that a cat would take.

You are presenting a conspiracy theory. For your theory to be true, who would be involved in keeping the secret? What do they have to gain from this action, what is their motivation? Start with Rudy. He tells us in the chat and Skype conversation all the things he did upstairs that would leave evidence of his presence down to drinking from the juice container in the fridge. Does he think nobody is going to notice his blood downstairs?

 

[Desert Fox]

Translation, I support everything judges that I like do. . . .

"When the President does it, it's not illegal."

I am pretty sure that if this was an American court doing this to an Italian defendant, they would be up in arms against what the United States was doing.

In fact there is a case in Florida where an Italian businessman murdered his partner but escaped to Italy before being arrested. My understanding is that the evidence of guilt was strong. Florida offered not to seek the death penalty. Italy refused to extradite but instead tried the defendant themselves. I do not know if they found him guilty or not.

 

[Machiavelli]

I have three sources that say you are: Gilder, Mellas, and dalla Vedova. I quoted two of them just yesterday.

Am I supposed to believe what defence supporters declare outside the trial? And keeping in mind that the defence have a right to lie? There is no defence request. These sources are like a hearsay, they are lies. There are no "multiple requests" of raw data from the defence the trial papers. There is nothing of the kind. If you know where these requests are, when they occurred and where they are recorded, then show them.

But I have one question for you, actually. Which is, s bit of clarification about the defence experts demands that Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti request raw data about clasp and knife. Do you think this demand is related to a defence expectation of obtaining raw data? Did they expect they (the defence) would obtain raw data through this request, as well? If yes, how exactly does it work, I mean in what way exactly would the raw data be delivered from C&V to the American experts? Was it C&V themselves who were expected to give them to defence consultants?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Peter Gill's book and its review at Amazon

Yes, you see what happens when a cult of hysterical nitwits must contend with real science that undermines their sacred belief.

I just posted a review. "Hysterical nitwits" is too kind.

 

[Machiavelli]

I have three sources that say you are: Gilder, Mellas, and dalla Vedova. I quoted two of them just yesterday.

'Prof. Tagliabracci and Dr. Onofri asked that the experts proceed to request the raw data (electronic files generated by the instrument) relative to the quantization and electrophoretic analysis relating to Items 165 B (clasp) and 36 (knife). Dr. Gino, Dr. Patumi, and Prof. Torre concurred with the request.'

It even includes the word 'request'.

And the subject?
Don't you notice a change of subject?
"the experts [C&V] proceed to request".
Who is the subject? It seems to me the subject here are Conti and Vecchiotti. We already know Conti and Vecchiotti made a request of raw data. We don't know how their mail exchange ended, we don't know if they obtained the data, if they changed idea or else, what we know for sure is that Conti and Vecchiotti declared they obtained all data they requested and were satisfied with the cooperation.
But from the phrase you quote above, which has Conti and Vecchiotti as subjects, who, you deduce, will get the raw data?
The judge appointed experts, or the defence?
You can read it: the defence are not going to be the ones who will get the data.
How is it, that you expect the raw data to be given to the defence?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

A consistent picture of lack of discovery emerged

Am I supposed to believe what defence supporters declare outside the trial? And keeping in mind that the defence have a right to lie? There is no defence request. These sources are like a hearsay, they are lies. There are no "multiple requests" of raw data from the defence the trial papers. There is nothing of the kind. If you know where these requests are, when they occurred and where they are recorded, then show them.

Machiavelli,

I believe in the words of experts, such as Jason Gilder, who allow themselves to be quoted by name. And when Gilder, dalla Vedova, and Mellas all say basically the same thing, it becomes even more convincing.

 

[carbonjam72]

It is my view that there is no reason for Rudy to go downstairs. It would be incredibly stupid to hang around the cottage containing a dead girl. The boys downstairs say the cat was injured and there was already blood in that apartment before they left for holiday. The tracts are consistent with the path that a cat would take.

You are presenting a conspiracy theory. For your theory to be true, who would be involved in keeping the secret? What do they have to gain from this action, what is their motivation? Start with Rudy. He tells us in the chat and Skype conversation all the things he did upstairs that would leave evidence of his presence down to drinking from the juice container in the fridge. Does he think nobody is going to notice his blood downstairs?

The question isn't whether you think Rudy has a reason to go downstairs. The question is, whether there is any evidence to suggest he did so.

(btw, might needing a change of clean clothes after a bloody murder that would fit Rudy (downstairs guys would more likely fit, girls less likely) so he could try to go home in cleaner clothes, could that be a reason for Rudy to go downstairs? To not get busted in bloody clothes from a murder scene on the way home?

As to how rational or straight thinking Rudy might be, seems like a lot of assumptions for someone with plainly observed mental problems, like experiencing black-out and fugue states, as Rudy reportedly had (Nina Burleigh went into this at length in her book, not sure if you take the Grinder note on this one.)

The point is, your expectations can be a great guide to help interpreting the evidence, but it can't outweigh the evidence.

The DNA experts (maybe you're one as well) on the site can argue the point more persuasively than I, but there were several human DNA profiles from downstairs that came back with human DNA, including on a light switch. (How can a cat drip blood on a light switch?) Those results have been suppressed.

Your assumption is the downstairs DNA can be explained as environmental. Perhaps that's possible. Were all of the samples upstairs also testing positive for DNA? Seems like we need to see the results before drawing a firm conclusion.

If the downstairs DNA turns out to be Rudy's profile, would you still deny Rudy went downstairs because you don't think he had a reason to go downstairs?
You don't see any reason for the police to conceal the downstairs crime scene and to protect Rudy early on. Fine. I do. I think there's support for my position, hence I hold it. I don't think I can convince you on this point, from previous exchanges.

But the question of conspiracy, and towards what end, etc, these are all separate questions from the evidence. There could be evidence of Rudy downstairs, yet the facts fit together in a way I'm not seeing.

Establishing Rudy being downstairs is only establishing Rudy being downstairs. I think an argument can be extended from that eventuality, but there's no logical need to jam every element in up front in an analysis, before considering a single fact in isolation. Hope I wrote that as intended and you're getting my meaning.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

I believe in the words of experts, such as Jason Gilder, who allow themselves to be quoted by name. And when Gilder, dalla Vedova, and Mellas all say basically the same thing, it becomes even more convincing.

So you believe that Gilder understands Italian, understands Italian criminal procedure, and has followed or read entirely the papers, so that he has direct experience about such "multiple" requests. You also believe Chris Mellas and Dalla Vedova are truthful and accurate reporters.
Is that correct?

But, you imply, you don't have the quotes. You have never seen those papers with these purported multiple requests in them. You are based on your faith (or trust in the assumptions and people mentioned above).
This is also correct?

 

[Diocletus]

It is my view that there is no reason for Rudy to go downstairs. It would be incredibly stupid to hang around the cottage containing a dead girl. The boys downstairs say the cat was injured and there was already blood in that apartment before they left for holiday. The tracts are consistent with the path that a cat would take.

You are presenting a conspiracy theory. For your theory to be true, who would be involved in keeping the secret? What do they have to gain from this action, what is their motivation? Start with Rudy. He tells us in the chat and Skype conversation all the things he did upstairs that would leave evidence of his presence down to drinking from the juice container in the fridge. Does he think nobody is going to notice his blood downstairs?

Let's approach this with some healthy skepticism.

What evidence is there that the blood downstairs is from a cat? Stefanoni's say-so???

 

[Diocletus]

So you believe that Gilder understands Italian, understands Italian criminal procedure, and has followed or read entirely the papers, so that he has direct experience about such "multiple" requests. You also believe Chris Mellas and Dalla Vedova are truthful and accurate reporters.
Is that correct?

But, you imply, you don't have the quotes. You have never seen those papers with these purported multiple requests in them. You are based on your faith (or trust in the assumptions and people mentioned above).
This is also correct?

Who cares. One request is enough.