Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[MDDVS]

I just read the reviews of Peter Gill's new book "Misleading DNA Evidence: Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice".


Are these people for real? The 1-star reviews read like a parody of guilter memes.

 

[Numbers]

I love these questions.

The Dali Lama recently spoke in New york, and it was live cast on the web. The level of discourse was astounding, I thought, but these types of questions - knowledge, truth, authenticity, identity, perception - shows this is all in a very long and respected tradition of human endeavor. The subtlety of the arguments is something you just don't normally encounter in regular discourse.

In the case at hand, I guess the answer is, it depends what you're after. If all you want to know, is whether guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, well that's any easy one. Duh, of course not (for you lurking guilters).

But I want to know the truth of what happened. I want to know why Giuliano Mignini choose the absolutely gentlest person in the world, as the ideal subject for his latest witch hunt. Or perhaps that is why; he mistook Amanda's gentle nature for weakness, and an easy kill.
The contrast between Amanda's plain goodness, and Mignini's clearly evil nature could not be more striking. It's that contrast that makes me unable to turn away. I know there are many injustices in the world. I feel this is one I can write about.

So, I want to know what happened, how it all got started. I want the idiot Mignini to be made to explain himself. He never will of course, but perhaps we can give him voice.

On a historical note, remember that Mussolini only invaded France after it had been essentially defeated by Nazi Germany. Mussolini invaded Greece on his own, thinking it would be an easy conquest for Italy, but the tough resistance of the Greeks to the Italian army led to Nazi Germany invading Greece to achieve an Axis victory. Before the war in Europe started, Mussolini invaded Ethiopia; the resistance of the Ethiopians (who lacked any large supplies of modern weapons and whose armies were not generally organized according to modern principles) was so strong that Mussolini ordered poison gas to be used against them, resulting in an Italian victory. Bullies typically pick on those they perceive as weak and use underhanded methods to gain their ends.

ETA: Duggan writes in Fascist Voices that the Italian government (Ministry of Defense) did not publicly admit to the Italian people that poison gas had been used in Ethiopia until 1996.

 

[kwill]

I just read the reviews of Peter Gill's new book "Misleading DNA Evidence: Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice".


Are these people for real? The 1-star reviews read like a parody of guilter memes.

The guilter memes are so absurd that they can't be parodied. Kind of like certain religious extremist memes.

They are parody; they just haven't realized it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, instead I consider the luminol footprint set to be excellent and powerful evidence. I think there is huge information there, I think it's serious and precise. The lack of alternative explanation is a key point to the evidence assessment, the improbability of a second alternative to explain this complex and peculiar combination of data which the luminol footprints are, is indeed valid and powerful circumstantial evidence.

Explain again how these footprints fit your conception of the crime, the activity through which you think they were produced. Some of the people here may not be familiar with your theory, and it's better for them to get it from you than from me.

What do this pair of posts have to do with......?

Do the guilters still think that lamp is a key piece of evidence? The lamp was in Meredith's room durring the investigation. But who moved it there, when and why are still unknown. Meredith could have borrowed Amanda's lamp since Amanda hadn't been staying in the cottage for several nights. The postal police might have brought the lamp in or the medical team that was there before the cameras arrived. Those would be relavent testimonies about the lamp. But all we get is Mignini having Amanda identify her lamp and perhaps one of the Italian roommates testified that the lamp came with the room. Nothing ties the lamp to the murder.

Wow.

Leaving aside the various CT’s [Them Italians are liars] it appears that even after all this time you have missed a rather important component of the cross-examination of Knox on the lamp issue.

It’s been explained scores of times, much like the RG sentence reduction and is just as simple.

And yet.

Well, actually it hasn't been explained. Because if it were explained you'd have an answer to this question, first asked by anglolawyer about a gazillion years ago....

What was the lamp used for?

Which brings us back to why this is posted here this way.....

What this pair of posting-threads have in common.

The Pro-guilt lobby can only assert things, because what they cannot do is as Charlie Wilkes observed.....

Explain again how these _____________ fit your conception of the crime, the activity through which you think they were produced. Some of the people here may not be familiar with your theory, and it's better for them to get it from you than from me.​

They never do - the Pro-guilt lobby never do, and most certainly neither Judge Massei nor Judge Nencini never did it, or the Pro-guilt lobby would be quoting from them just to shut me up.....

In fact another Machiavelli said that a timeline of the crime was not important anyway. What this means is that guilters and prosecutors and courts can say guilt-like things and have them convict, without any sense in how they fit together osmotically, when considered as a whole - when put along a timeline.

Meaning, if someone is going to chuck the lamp into a guilt-scenario, as some "proof" that AK and/or RS were involved, and not do this just to make some guilt-sounds, but rather use this as some sort of proof.....

What was the lamp used for?

 

[RWVBWL]

Greetings everyone,
For some who still might not understand why I might be 1 of the few
who believes there mighta been 2 perps involved,
I'd like to ask you some questions.


Fingerprints in the flat:

47 belonged to Meredith Kercher, 17 to Rudy Guede, 5 to Raffaele Sollecito, 5 to Filomena Romanelli, 5 to Laura Mezzetti, 4 to Giacomo Silenzi, 1 to Amanda Knox, 13 were not attributed to anyone.

4 of the 13 un-identified fingerprints were found in Meredith's bedroom,
2 on a small calendar, 2 on her door.
Who left them?


There is apparent seminal fluid found on the pillow that Meredith is laying atop, naked.

Who left it there?

Dr Patrizia Stefanoni can be heard at 6:15 pm on Saturday evening, Nov. 3, 2007
telling her assistant Alessa in Rome to test these samples tomorrow.
On Sunday?
There must have been a rush to find out who raped and murdered a young foreign college student, it seems. What are those results again?
Who left it there?



That is, apparently, a blonde hair found in Meredith's hands grasp.
You have seen the photo, but have another look at it here,
it's a much larger photo that Ergon over at PMF.net posted back in 2013:
http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=437
Heck, you can even see a small fiber on her hand, to the bottom right of the larger image.

That sure looks like a pubic hair to me,
not a hair from someones head, or chest, back, arm or leg. Too bad it is now lost.

Who left it there, and also another blonde hair,
found upon examination of Meredith's genital propped up on top of her pillow?
What if the seminal fluid is not Rudy Guede's?


Lastly,
About left the bloody finger smear on the wall above Meredith's bed?

There has never been an id of the person who did so, right?
Why not, was this print made by someone wearing gloves?
Who left it there?

 

[RWVBWL]

About the Knife:
The blade, when laid down on Meredith's bed is bloody, right?
For it left a few blood drops, a bloody outline, and even a bloodier outline of a small part of the knifes handle.
But it stops.

Look at some photographs of this:
http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/knife-lcn-dna-evidence/

+

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheKnife.html

But where is the blood from whomever placed it on the bed?
Shouldn't his hand have been covered in blood too?

How did this person lay down the knife without leaving any hand print, fingerprint,
or heck, even any blood drops where the knife handle should be?

It is odd that ILE could not id the bloody finger marks on Meredith's wall.
Was someone wearing gloves?

And it's weird too that the person who laid the knife down did not leave any blood drops or bloody finger marks like what's seen on the wall nearby.

Why not?
Were they wearing gloves, got them covered in blood too and removed them?
The blood stops right on the knife imprint after where the handle meets the blade.
That lack of blood were a bloody hand imprint should be on Meredith's bed is bothering me right now...
RW

 

[Kauffer]

Greetings everyone,
For some who still might not understand why I might be 1 of the few who believes there mighta been 2 perps involved, I'll ask you some questions.


Fingerprints in the flat:


There are 4 un-identified fingerprints found in Meredith's bedroom,
2 on a small calendar, 2 on her door.
Who left them?


There is apparent seminal fluid found on the pillow that Meredith is laying atop, naked.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=8942[/qimg]
Who left it there?

Dr Patrizia Stefanoni can be heard at 6:15 pm on Saturday evening, Nov. 3, 2007 telling her assistant Alessa in Rome to test these samples tomorrow.
On Sunday?
There must have been a rush to find out who raped and murdered a young foreign college student, it seems. What are those results again?
Who left it there?



That is, apparently, a blonde hair found in Meredith's hands grasp.
You have seen the photo, but have another look at it here,
it's a much larger photo that Ergon over at PMF.net posted back in 2013:
http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=437
Heck, you can even see a small fiber on her hand, to the bottom right of the larger image.

That sure looks like a pubic hair to me,
not a hair from someones head, or chest, back, arm or leg. Too bad it is now lost.

Who left it there, and also another blonde hair,
found upon examination of Meredith's genital propped up on top of her pillow?


Lastly,
About left the bloody finger smear on the wall above Meredith's bed?
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9248[/qimg]
There has never been an id of the person who did so, right?
Why not, was this print made by someone wearing gloves?
Who left it there?

Your posts have a certain drama. I keep expecting to see the great reveal, but it never comes. But I'm sure there's a job for you making stuff up for TV.

If Meredith Kercher was killed by more than one person I feel sure we would have, within the bloodbath in her room, significant, unmistakable evidence of the presence of additional perpetrators. Yet it doesn't exist. Nor does it exist anywhere else.

Smudgy fingerprints are common; they are not evidence of mysterious presence.

 

[RWVBWL]

Greetings Kauffer,
Thanks for your input.
I find more than a few things odd about this casse we discuss,
another is about this guy HK who testified in court like this:

What is the guy hiding from, esh is this even HK?
I've read that he was a police informant.
Odd, I thought it was Rudy who was the informant...


Hey, while I have you online still, and before I bail,
do you have any thoughts on why whomever held the bloody knife and laid it on Meredith's bed did not leave any blood drops, or bloody hand or finger marks, (like on the wall nearby), where the knife handle should have been held?

Thanks, RW

 

[carbonjam72]

Greetings everyone,
For some who still might not understand why I might be 1 of the few
who believes there mighta been 2 perps involved,
I'd like to ask you some questions.


Fingerprints in the flat:


4 of the 13 un-identified fingerprints were found in Meredith's bedroom,
2 on a small calendar, 2 on her door.
Who left them?


There is apparent seminal fluid found on the pillow that Meredith is laying atop, naked.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=8942[/qimg]
Who left it there?

Dr Patrizia Stefanoni can be heard at 6:15 pm on Saturday evening, Nov. 3, 2007
telling her assistant Alessa in Rome to test these samples tomorrow.
On Sunday?
There must have been a rush to find out who raped and murdered a young foreign college student, it seems. What are those results again?
Who left it there?



That is, apparently, a blonde hair found in Meredith's hands grasp.
You have seen the photo, but have another look at it here,
it's a much larger photo that Ergon over at PMF.net posted back in 2013:
http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=437
Heck, you can even see a small fiber on her hand, to the bottom right of the larger image.

That sure looks like a pubic hair to me,
not a hair from someones head, or chest, back, arm or leg. Too bad it is now lost.

Who left it there, and also another blonde hair,
found upon examination of Meredith's genital propped up on top of her pillow?
What if the seminal fluid is not Rudy Guede's?


Lastly,
About left the bloody finger smear on the wall above Meredith's bed?
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9248[/qimg]
There has never been an id of the person who did so, right?
Why not, was this print made by someone wearing gloves?
Who left it there?

Replying to this and your next post.

I applaud your tenacity and willingness to consider alternative possibilities.

But I also know you read my previous post concerning 'gravity'. With just one set of footprints in Meredith's wet blood, how could anyone else be in the room when Meredith was attacked and murdered?

There can't be anyone else there, because there are only one set of footprints in Meredith's wet blood, which Rudy freely admits are his, and freely admits he was there in the room when Meredith died.

Also, Rudy's story is that he came out of the bathroom when he heard Meredith scream, and the male attacker "not taller than me(Rudy)" according to Rudy's skype call, has a knife and slashes at Rudy, cutting Rudy's fingers.

If Rudy's story is true, then when did Rudy's mystery guy have time to lay the knife on the bed and leave a bloody imprint?
RBW, all your objections are based on what you speculate would likely have occurred, rather than observing the evidence that is available and drawing conclusions.
The possibility of a second person outside the room where Meredtih was killed, is not precluded by the presence of only one set of footprints in blood in the room where Meredith was killed.

But your theory is based on the unaccounted for "blond" or light hair in Meredtih's hand. So I would suggest the first choice would be to understand if there may be some explanation consistent with only Rudy as the attacker.

There was also blood and hair on the broken window in Filomena's room that also went missing, no? Doesn't that evidence also concern you?

Unidentified finger prints, is no more incriminating than unconfirmed luminol hits. You can't reasonably suggest they don't belong to the inhabitants of the cottage or got there innocently, without identifying them as belonging to someone not authorized to be in the cottage, or having gotten there when the murder occurred - for example if they were left in Meredith's wet blood.
Suppose for example, that Meredith had been killed in the bathroom, where Amanda's DNA was known to be present. Would that be incriminating to Amanda? It shouldn't in a normal court proceeding, but who knows in Italy.

Even finding Amanda or Raf's DNA in Meredith room in trace amounts, really ought not to be considered incriminating of their participation in Meredith's murder, unless found for example, inside her.

I would go with the forensic professionals like steve Moore, Jim Clemente and John Douglas who have provided their clear assessment that this was a single attacker.

The absence of a second set of footprints in blood should have established to any reasonable observer that only one person was involved. Your effort to introduce multiple actors. is no more supported or logical than Mignini and his cabal of keystone cops, imo.

Your posts in general that I've seen have been awesome, and your attention to detail has helped me to understand the evidence far more closely than I had on my own. I just can't go for the multiple attacker theory, when it appears precluded by the actual plainly visible evidence of only one set of footprints in Meredith's blood.

 

[RWVBWL]

Greetings CarbonJam72,
Thanks for the input, I'm following your Mignini/Perugia postings, good stuff.
Nina Burleigh's book was an eye opener on Mignini and Perugia, for this L.A. beach boy...

Anyways,
so far no 1 can answer any of my questions in that post above.

You simply do not know who left the fingerprints on her door, her little calendar, who left the seminal fluid/semen stain, who that possible blonde hair is from, or who left the finger marks on the wall, (what, in 3 different fingers, the ILE could not find a single trace of whom this was from?)

Nor does anyone have an explanation of how a knife with blood on it was laid down on the bed without getting any blood drops, hand or fingermarks on her bed, near the handle. Why does the blood just stop at 1 point?
Wasn't there blood all over this guys arm, hand holding the knife, his clothing?

I'd wager the knife was removed right after she was stabbed.
There musta been so much blood on this guy.
But I do not see any where the knife handle was, except for the bit where it 1st meets the blade.

Maybe I've read too much Frank Sfarzo over the years,
where he seems to doubt that Rudy was the murderer.

Sure Rudy was there, but did he kill her?
Probably. Most likely.
But when I add what I posted tonight together along with the downstairs info, (Human blood? I thought it was all just cats blood?), I gotta wonder if we'll ever know the real story of what happened...

It's l8 in L.A.,
I'm headin' back to the beach in a few hours,
it's been soooo warm the last few days, and so is the water still, yea!
Life is better in board shorts!!!
Have a good one,
RW

 

[platonov]

FWIW

But why must be there be a specific piece of evidence of Amanda Knox that must be located inside the murder room? You ask for something that is completely unnecessary. This "locating" a piece of evidence from a specific person inside a room makes no sense. Evidence is a logical concept, it is not an object located within a small space.

Actually Mach, This comes up again & again.

Obviously restricting discussion of evidence to ‘the murder room’ was an early FOA talking point. But I’m not sure if that’s the only thing going on here.
There is a cultural background (lowbrow admittedly) to this also.
It is (or was) a staple of certain types of murder movies or TV shows ; The DA or cop turns to his doubtful partner or sexy sidekick and exclaims ‘This puts him in the murder room – we’ve got him’.

It is similar to the repeated demands for the ‘Timeline’*. In the movies, after an hour and a half of ‘mystery & intrigue’ all is explained in an easy to follow flashback and the good guy or pretty heroine is free.

This bleeding of TV tropes into real life is a feature of the groupie phenomenon.



*Leave aside the fact that, in common law jurisdictions, murder convictions have been obtained where the charge is as broad as “between March 28rd & April 2nd the accused ......etc etc”

 

[anglolawyer]

Actually Mach, This comes up again & again.

Obviously restricting discussion of evidence to ‘the murder room’ was an early FOA talking point. But I’m not sure if that’s the only thing going on here.
There is a cultural background (lowbrow admittedly) to this also.
It is (or was) a staple of certain types of murder movies or TV shows ; The DA or cop turns to his doubtful partner or sexy sidekick and exclaims ‘This puts him in the murder room – we’ve got him’.

It is similar to the repeated demands for the ‘Timeline’*. In the movies, after an hour and a half of ‘mystery & intrigue’ all is explained in an easy to follow flashback and the good guy or pretty heroine is free.

This bleeding of TV tropes into real life is a feature of the groupie phenomenon.



*Leave aside the fact that, in common law jurisdictions, murder convictions have been obtained where the charge is as broad as “between March 28rd & April 2nd the accused ......etc etc”

No, those are real things whether they are on TV or not. Of course there are cases where the date of death is not known and in which it is not possible (or necessary) to piece together a minute by minute timeline but, each case is different. Here, we are told the prosecution case consists of a number of facts that do have fairly precise time stamps. Expecting it to be possible to put together a coherent narrative is perfectly reasonable. Likewise, in a small room that became a bloodbath involving close and violent contact, one would expect evidence of the presence of the perps. You aren't seriously suggesting that the absence of such evidence is meaningless, are you? If so, I respectfully suggest you stick to your normal policy of mockery and sarcasm and remain 'above' the discussion here.

 

[Desert Fox]

Actually Mach, This comes up again & again.

Obviously restricting discussion of evidence to ‘the murder room’ was an early FOA talking point. But I’m not sure if that’s the only thing going on here.
There is a cultural background (lowbrow admittedly) to this also.
It is (or was) a staple of certain types of murder movies or TV shows ; The DA or cop turns to his doubtful partner or sexy sidekick and exclaims ‘This puts him in the murder room – we’ve got him’.

It is similar to the repeated demands for the ‘Timeline’*. In the movies, after an hour and a half of ‘mystery & intrigue’ all is explained in an easy to follow flashback and the good guy or pretty heroine is free.

This bleeding of TV tropes into real life is a feature of the groupie phenomenon.



*Leave aside the fact that, in common law jurisdictions, murder convictions have been obtained where the charge is as broad as “between March 28rd & April 2nd the accused ......etc etc”

No, those are real things whether they are on TV or not. Of course there are cases where the date of death is not known and in which it is not possible (or necessary) to piece together a minute by minute timeline but, each case is different. Here, we are told the prosecution case consists of a number of facts that do have fairly precise time stamps. Expecting it to be possible to put together a coherent narrative is perfectly reasonable. Likewise, in a small room that became a bloodbath involving close and violent contact, one would expect evidence of the presence of the perps. You aren't seriously suggesting that the absence of such evidence is meaningless, are you? If so, I respectfully suggest you stick to your normal policy of mockery and sarcasm and remain 'above' the discussion here.

In the case of the Norfolk Four, there was expert testimony that the crime scene (the bedroom) indicates that there was only a single individual involved. I see this as a very similar situation.

One would expect that others involved in an attack against Meredeth would leave significant evidence of being involved. The only two other arguments are a magical cleanup or Amanda from the hallway yelled "Kill the bitch."

 

[anglolawyer]

In the case of the Norfolk Four, there was expert testimony that the crime scene (the bedroom) indicates that there was only a single individual involved. I see this as a very similar situation.

One would expect that others involved in an attack against Meredeth would leave significant evidence of being involved. The only two other arguments are a magical cleanup or Amanda from the hallway yelled "Kill the bitch."

Let's try to put the guilter narrative together for them, shall we?

Meredith arrived home shortly after 9 and then did nothing that left any trace. Maybe she sat down and read a book. Over at Raf's they were fooling around until 9.26 when he started Naruto, a 20 minute film, but they didn't watch it. Instead they went straight out to the Piazza with the kitchen knife. We don't know they were there all the time until midnight, only that they were there whenever Curatolo looked up from his newspaper. At some point they must have headed over to the apartment, perhaps running into Rudy on the way, and together got into a bust-up with her. This was either before 10.30 or after 11.15, most likely later because that's when the scream was heard (albeit only in the apartments, not the Piazza) followed by the running footsteps of more than one person (not in the direction of the Piazza if I understand correctly).

At some time during the night, her phones were dumped in Lana's garden and there was some cleaning. Or possibly the cleaning was in the morning before they called Filomena and Raf's sister. In fact, there must have been a daylight clean up as we have Quintavalle to prove it.

Any PGPs got a problem with that? Is that how you guys think it happened, time wise? Is it a secret? I can understand the reticence because you have to out yourself as being basically willing to believe anything but what's a little ridicule? Platonov, you like badinage. Tell us what you think? Have I got it about right? I would ask Supercallifradgilistic but s/he has been banned for threatening legal proceedings against the forum (in case anyone was unaware), for what I have no idea. That only leaves you and Mach and Mach already told us it was 'too soon' to put together a timeline.

 

[Desert Fox]

Let's try to put the guilter narrative together for them, shall we?

Meredith arrived home shortly after 9 and then did nothing that left any trace. Maybe she sat down and read a book. Over at Raf's they were fooling around until 9.26 when he started Naruto, a 20 minute film, but they didn't watch it. Instead they went straight out to the Piazza with the kitchen knife. We don't know they were there all the time until midnight, only that they were there whenever Curatolo looked up from his newspaper. At some point they must have headed over to the apartment, perhaps running into Rudy on the way, and together got into a bust-up with her. This was either before 10.30 or after 11.15, most likely later because that's when the scream was heard (albeit only in the apartments, not the Piazza) followed by the running footsteps of more than one person (not in the direction of the Piazza if I understand correctly).

At some time during the night, her phones were dumped in Lana's garden and there was some cleaning. Or possibly the cleaning was in the morning before they called Filomena and Raf's sister. In fact, there must have been a daylight clean up as we have Quintavalle to prove it.

Any PGPs got a problem with that? Is that how you guys think it happened, time wise? Is it a secret? I can understand the reticence because you have to out yourself as being basically willing to believe anything but what's a little ridicule? Platonov, you like badinage. Tell us what you think? Have I got it about right? I would ask Supercallifradgilistic but s/he has been banned for threatening legal proceedings against the forum (in case anyone was unaware), for what I have no idea. That only leaves you and Mach and Mach already told us it was 'too soon' to put together a timeline.

It has been seven years since the murder. Maybe we will get a timeline in 2050?

 

[Kauffer]

Lack of evidence

Actually Mach, This comes up again & again.

Obviously restricting discussion of evidence to ‘the murder room’ was an early FOA talking point. But I’m not sure if that’s the only thing going on here.
There is a cultural background (lowbrow admittedly) to this also.
It is (or was) a staple of certain types of murder movies or TV shows ; The DA or cop turns to his doubtful partner or sexy sidekick and exclaims ‘This puts him in the murder room – we’ve got him’.

It is similar to the repeated demands for the ‘Timeline’*. In the movies, after an hour and a half of ‘mystery & intrigue’ all is explained in an easy to follow flashback and the good guy or pretty heroine is free.

This bleeding of TV tropes into real life is a feature of the groupie phenomenon.



*Leave aside the fact that, in common law jurisdictions, murder convictions have been obtained where the charge is as broad as “between March 28rd & April 2nd the accused ......etc etc”

This isn't TV. This is real life. Explain then how it would be possible for four people to share the space, be engaged in a life or death struggle, for there to be multiple stabbings, prolific exsanguination and violent death and that one of the perps leaves no evidence of her presence behind and another a few cells. Were they floating on air? The third perp left prints and DNA. Yet in wet blood and on fabric, no prints of the other two. How so?

Make me a believer.

 

[anglolawyer]

It has been seven years since the murder. Maybe we will get a timeline in 2050?

To be fair, Mach said it was 'too soon' before the ISC appeal. Now, he might no longer think it too soon or he may have a different reason for not wanting to make a complete fool of himself as Nencini and Crini have done in one of the most brilliant, unintentionally funny double acts the legal world has ever produced.

 

[carbonjam72]

Mach's Partial Timeline -

To be fair, Mach said it was 'too soon' before the ISC appeal. Now, he might no longer think it too soon or he may have a different reason for not wanting to make a complete fool of himself as Nencini and Crini have done in one of the most brilliant, unintentionally funny double acts the legal world has ever produced.

Mach has provided a vey thrilling time line of the actual murder, with possibly enough detail to infer some of the events outside the actual killing. And Mach has taken many of the objections of evidence into his, excuse me Mach, - 'somewhat fanciful account'. I'm reposting it below, and highlighting some of the gems I find within -

Originally Posted by carbonjam72
I want to return to this post, because I feel it is so central to Mach's view, and indicative of the fundamental error he is making in regard to his analysis of this case.

The most basic truth of this case, is gravity.

(...)

(MACH's TIMELINE OF MURDER):

1. The first question is: where did Meredith receive the fatal blow, which caused the massive blood loss? I mean the location in space. This spot is located between 40 and 60 centimeters from the floor, left of the wardrobe.
Meredith was facing the wall, the fatal wound is at her left, the person holding the kitchen knife (Knox) inflicted the fatal blow while she was located between Meredith and the bed. Immediately after Knox retracted the knife and herself and she let the knife on the bed sheet where the blade left an iprint (which matches the kitchen knife perfectly btw).

Note: between 40 and 60 centimeters. This is the height from which blood travelled by gravity.
Nobody could be standing under such a low spot.
Only the person who was keeping the hold on her in that kneeling position whould have been somehow get significantly dirty with blood, and may also work as a screen to blood drops.

Meredith was immediately left on the floor while the perpetrators retracted and at least two of them run immediately outside. In some minutes Meredith died of haemorragic suffocation and fatal blood loss.
Pools of blood were formed in that spot of the room over the minute following the fatal blow or so, but I don't see why some perpetrator must have necessarily walked in the pools.

2. Rudy Guede was the person holding Meredith. He had both his hands free. He was at her back, slighlty on her right, and was basically the person closest to her. At first he used a hand to commit a sexual violence but then he used both his hand to restrain her, blocking her right wirst. He pressed the palm of his hand on her mouth when she screamed, and so his palm got dirty with blood.

3. Her trousers had been removed forcedly by someone who was pulling them while someone else was holding her. The person who was holding her was Guede, and the person who pulled her trousers could have been Knox. Meredith did not remove her trousers herself, because the trousers are completely reversed and that would be a very unusual and difficult way to remove them even if she did it under threat. You need someone to pull them from a somehow distant position. But someone must hold her. Basically, you need two people.
This means there are some perpetators who are somehow in "external" position.

4. One assailant was facing her at some moment. This assailant did not have both his hands free as Guede did. This one was holding a knife, possibly a small knife, which produced a small cut on her left cheek, that looks like a kind of threat.

5. Meredith also suffered a wound on the right side of her neck. That was a rather superficial wound (4 centimeters) from a pointed narrow blade, a different knife. It's a minor wound but it's the wound that caused the soaking with blood of the bra shoulder, and this happened in another spot of the room, closer to the entrance and while Meredith's head was much more higher from the floor. But she was laid down fwith force on the floor at a certain point. Someone climbed over her, and pressed her body against the floor (the weight caused bruises at the bottom of her back).

6. Meredith was obviously resisting through all the steps of this violent assault. She was never complied with the aggrssors. Her wounds are a massive set of defensive wounds, they show how the assailants were forced to employ physical force to restrain her, they show her resistence. However, they also show that her capability to resist was being diminished, her hands were immobilized. Only one hand has defensive wounds showing contact with the blade and those defensive wounds are minimal. She has massive defensive wounds, but not defensive wounds on her hands.

 

[Bill Williams]

Actually Mach, This comes up again & again.

Obviously restricting discussion of evidence to ‘the murder room’ was an early FOA talking point. But I’m not sure if that’s the only thing going on here.

I wish that the Pro-guilt lobby could use something other than strawman arguments.

Why is this one strawman? Because no one, much less whoever this FOA is, ever restricted discussion of evidence this way.

People who have come to this later than the FOA asked the same question - why is their no evidence of Amanda, and the most thin evidence imaginable against Raffaele, in the murder room? I mean, take this osmotically.

The answer of both the Massei court and the Nencini court was to ignore this all together, and fall back on the most general of phrases.....

.... the whole cottage is the crime scene, not just the murder room.​

But this offering begs the question. Ok, the whole cottage is the crime scene..... that makes it doubly strange that there is no evidence of two of the three alleged perps in the murder room.

The best that someone like Machiavelli can do is to say, "Well then why isn't there evidence of Rudy in the bathroom?" The silliness of this question is revealed upthread when a poster replied, "You mean, other than his admission he went into the bathroom to get towels?"

The pro-guilt lobby relies on strawman argument as well as misdirection on what the evidence is to make their case.

 

[Bill Williams]

Mach has provided a vey thrilling time line of the actual murder, with possibly enough detail to infer some of the events outside the actual killing. And Mach has taken many of the objections of evidence into his, excuse me Mach, - 'somewhat fanciful account'. I'm reposting it below, and highlighting some of the gems I find within -
(MACH's TIMELINE OF MURDER):

1. The first question is: where did Meredith receive the fatal blow, which caused the massive blood loss? I mean the location in space. This spot is located between 40 and 60 centimeters from the floor, left of the wardrobe.
Meredith was facing the wall, the fatal wound is at her left, the person holding the kitchen knife (Knox) inflicted the fatal blow while she was located between Meredith and the bed. Immediately after Knox retracted the knife and herself and she let the knife on the bed sheet where the blade left an iprint (which matches the kitchen knife perfectly btw).

There is one and only one reason why the Crini prosecution in the Nencini court in 2013 had to give up on a second knife. By "give up" on a second knife, I mean to give up on the allegation that there were two knives....

..... one being the kitchen knife from Raffaele's with all the DNA that Stefanoni tested....

..... and the second knife known only by the presence of an outline of it in blood on Meredith's bedsheet. This used to be touted as the second knife by the pro-guilt lobby because it was so obviously NOT a match for the kitchen knife.

Then the RIS Carabinieri gave their report to the Nencini court about the mandated DNA testing of sample 36i on the knife.

If the ownership of that piece of evidence had been Meredith Kercher, then I would be a guilter. Perhaps most of the people here on this thread would be too. We'd be apologizing to Machiavelli.

But no, the sample was Amanda Knox's adding nothing, really, to knowing anything about that knife other than that she'd probably cooked with it back at Raffaele's where it was found; and where there is NO evidence that it had ever left that drawer in Raffaele's place.

You can tell why, then, Crini had to - straight out of the blue, with NO evidence supporting it - say in court that all of a sudden, three trials into this farce, that the bloodstain outline on the sheet now was a match for the kitchen knife back at Raffaele's. What was at stake was literally the whole case against AK and RS..... if that knife never made it to the cottage, then Stefanoni really did frame two students....

Strangely, as an aside, Machiavelli from this very thread makes a posting three or four days before Crini's assertion in court, that he, too, now thinks there is a match between the knife and the stain. Machiavelli was ridiculed for that assertion.... all until no less than Crini himself made the claim in the Florence court!!!!

Fast forward to Judge Nencini's motivations report. Is there ANY mention of the stain matching the kitchen knife?

Yet Machiavelli is still content to chuck into the mix that factoid. The factoid that the stain and that knife match, is de facto admission that there is otherwise no relation to that knife with the crime itself.

This is a factoid even Mignini himself was too embarrassed to risk. The obvious dissimilarity between the stain and the kitchen knife was the very reason why the first prosecution (Mignini/Comodi) had to manufacture out of whole cloth to begin with, the two-knife theory.

How many times do people get to reinvent this crime in order to keep the pro-guilt lobby afloat?