Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

There is no trace of Rudy in the burglary room. Odd, when he'd just scaled a wall 12'6" high and ransacked the room in advance,, it seems, of smashing the window with a 12" boulder weighing >9lbs. You riposte, ah, but he was wearing gloves, but then criminal-conscious Rudy then took his gloves off to leave a nice big palm print for those nice policemen? Really?

It's not odd at all. Not all surfaces are conducive for gathering fingerprints. In fact most aren't. Rudy was in the bathroom too and he left no prints there either. Maybe Amanda and Raffaele staged Rudy taking a dump as well!
It's worth noting that they never found Amanda's or Laura's or Raffaele's print in Filomena's room. Were they wearing gloves when they allegedly "staged" this burglary? Can't have it both ways in your thinking. BTW, only 2 identifiable prints of anyone were found in Filomena's bedroom. What a surprise they both belonged to Filomena.

It's quite dumb to conclude anything from what is not found. In fact, if I'm not mistaken they only found just the single palm print in the entire house! If they hadn't found the one, would that mean that Rudy did not kill Meredith?I

There is such an absurd quality to your logic. Why you're willing to ignore evidence that is exculpatory and why you insist that benign evidence is somehow probative.

And stop with the mixed blood claims. Meredith's blood was found mixed with Amanda's DNA. This is quite different and you know it. Finding anyone's DNA anywhere does not mean they were involved in a crime. It only means they were there at some time before the sample was taken. In fact, it doesn't always mean that because secondary transfer and contamination can be factors.

They were acquitted. Deal with it.

Every time one checks in here, one reads something that settles it. In any of the falsely provocative stuff Vixen spews here, there's usually a show-stopper response - like acbytesla's above.

Yet like a carnival barker moving to the next town, the falsely provocative stuff just keeps coming, usually recycled in three-month cycles. And the barker neglects to move to the next town.

One of the well-known guilters, now long since gone, made the point back in late 2011 that if the DNA evidence exonerates Raffaele and Amanda, that it should exonerate Rudy as well. It was pointed out to that guilter that once Rudy was found, his DNA-footprint could be compared to what was found at the scene of the crime, and the only (then) DNA which pointed to anyone, pointed uniquely to Rudy!

The double-DNA knife was found at Raffaele's, and could not be said to be tied to the murder unless one could explain how Meredith's non-blood DNA got on that knife, or why it was suspicious that a cooking knife at Raffaele's would be suspicious for having Amanda's DNA on the handle- she cooked at Raffaele's!

And then, 46 days later, the bra-clasp...... but rather than get into that here - it is bizarre in the extreme that one could claim an equivalence of the DNA of Rudy found at the scene, with the eventual claimed DNA of the other two. That's just bizarre.....

..... and shows how far one must reach to even suggest it.

Better at this late date to talk about the supposed difference between paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of the grounds for acquittal, neither of which is a "they almost proved they did it, but missed by an inch" clause. The, "If only they had one more piece of fake evidence we could have convicted them," clause.

They were acquitted exonerated almost a year ago. Deal with it.

 

[JREF2010]

And the barker neglects to move to the next town.

thanks for the chuckle, that was funny.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's not odd at all. Not all surfaces are conducive for gathering fingerprints. In fact most aren't. Rudy was in the bathroom too and he left no prints there either. Maybe Amanda and Raffaele staged Rudy taking a dump as well!
It's worth noting that they never found Amanda's or Laura's or Raffaele's print in Filomena's room. Were they wearing gloves when they allegedly "staged" this burglary? Can't have it both ways in your thinking. BTW, only 2 identifiable prints of anyone were found in Filomena's bedroom. What a surprise they both belonged to Filomena.

It's quite dumb to conclude anything from what is not found. In fact, if I'm not mistaken they only found just the single palm print in the entire house! If they hadn't found the one, would that mean that Rudy did not kill Meredith?I

There is such an absurd quality to your logic. Why you're willing to ignore evidence that is exculpatory and why you insist that benign evidence is somehow probative.

And stop with the mixed blood claims. Meredith's blood was found mixed with Amanda's DNA. This is quite different and you know it. Finding anyone's DNA anywhere does not mean they were involved in a crime. It only means they were there at some time before the sample was taken. In fact, it doesn't always mean that because secondary transfer and contamination can be factors.

They were acquitted. Deal with it.

Agreed. I would add that insofar as "Guede wearing gloves then removing his gloves is concerned"..... it's probably a) rather easier (and far less risk of injury) to wear reasonably heavy gloves to break into a house through an upstairs window than to have bare hands, and b) rather difficult to conduct a manual sexual assault wearing heavy gloves.

It's therefore IMO entirely logical to suppose that Guede used gloves (and probably a heavy jacket) to break in, then removed one or both of his gloves as his urges overcame him and he initiated a sexual assault upon Kercher. In fact, given that the evidence shows that the killer (Guede) very probably unbuttoned and removed Kercher's jeans as part of this sexual assault, this action in itself would have been essentially impossible for anyone wearing heavy gloves.

Not really deductive reasoning at the level of Holmes or Poirot, but considerably ahead of the Clouseau-level stuff coming from the sort of "REASONING" that scoffs at the very possibility of Guede removing his gloves at some point once inside the cottage.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not really deductive reasoning at the level of Holmes or Poirot, but considerably ahead of the Clouseau-level stuff coming from the sort of "REASONING" that scoffs at the very possibility of Guede removing his gloves at some point once inside the cottage.

One could very easily imagine how the issue of "Rudy couldn't have removed gloves" would have been handled at the Chieffi panel of ISC in 2013.

"Unless the defence can prove that Rudy wore and then removed gloves, the lower courts erred in law by saying it was obvious - that he wore gloves to break in, but took them off to assault the victim."

 

[Grinder]

The idea is not that they could not stand around and talk but that any kind of tussle would have resulted in people falling, hitting walls, leaving evidence, etc.

And the evidence that they didn't bump a wall or bed is????

The evidence people didn't fall is????

This is just as dumb an argument as Meredith having a light jacket/coat on proves she just arrived home. Some people, myself included, keep the heat down when out and keep my coat on until the place heats up.

The scenario isn't believable but not because of the size of the room.

 

[Grinder]

Now, subtract, the bed, the desk the wardrobe and the nightstand.

There would north of 50 sq. ft. and plenty of room for 4 people. But someone could have been on or part way on the bed as well.

Stupid scenario but not because of the room size.

 

[Grinder]

I would add that when you are standing in a train or bus, it is both an extremely unpleasant situation and you try to move as little as possible.

Yes but that would be because 20 people would be in the room using the open space.

Stupid scenario but not because there wasn't enough room.

 

[Desert Fox]

And the evidence that they didn't bump a wall or bed is????

The evidence people didn't fall is????

This is just as dumb an argument as Meredith having a light jacket/coat on proves she just arrived home. Some people, myself included, keep the heat down when out and keep my coat on until the place heats up.

The scenario isn't believable but not because of the size of the room.

I am going to assume that you are misunderstanding me. What I am specifically arguing is that if there was more than Meredeth and Guede there and there was a fight, there would have been evidence of them. In addition, I would expect more disturbance in the room than the first pictures appear to show.

 

[Grinder]

I am going to assume that you are misunderstanding me. What I am specifically arguing is that if there was more than Meredeth and Guede there and there was a fight, there would have been evidence of them. In addition, I would expect more disturbance in the room than the first pictures appear to show.

Stupid scenario but with three people restraining Meredith it would be more difficult for her the flail around. 50 sq ft gives plenty of room for three attackers. It's not like four people in a phone booth.

No matter what lens this shows there was room

 

[Desert Fox]

Actually you just proved my point. . . .On the desks, things are cluttered and messy but not disturbed.

 

[acbytesla]

Agreed. I would add that insofar as "Guede wearing gloves then removing his gloves is concerned"..... it's probably a) rather easier (and far less risk of injury) to wear reasonably heavy gloves to break into a house through an upstairs window than to have bare hands, and b) rather difficult to conduct a manual sexual assault wearing heavy gloves.

It's therefore IMO entirely logical to suppose that Guede used gloves (and probably a heavy jacket) to break in, then removed one or both of his gloves as his urges overcame him and he initiated a sexual assault upon Kercher. In fact, given that the evidence shows that the killer (Guede) very probably unbuttoned and removed Kercher's jeans as part of this sexual assault, this action in itself would have been essentially impossible for anyone wearing heavy gloves.

Not really deductive reasoning at the level of Holmes or Poirot, but considerably ahead of the Clouseau-level stuff coming from the sort of "REASONING" that scoffs at the very possibility of Guede removing his gloves at some point once inside the cottage.

There is little reason for a common burglar to wear gloves as police almost never dust for prints unless there is a violent crime like rape or a homicide. It's messy, it takes time, it usually doesn't produce much and it's costly.

Rudy could have been wearing gloves to protect his hands during the climb and handling the glass as opposed to the possibility of leaving prints. But there is no way to know why something was not found. We can speculate until the cows come home, it will never be proof.

Vixen is trying to make something out of nothing.

 

[Grinder]

Actually you just proved my point. . . .On the desks, things are cluttered and messy but not disturbed.

Sure

 

[Grinder]

But at the same time, the overwhelmingly prevailing opinion was that if this was a "reasonable doubt" case in the eyes of the SC, then the case would without doubt have been sent back down to the appeal court level for (yet) another trial. The fact that this didn't happen, and that the SC totally acquitted, would seem to strongly support a belief that the SC ruled that there was entirely no case to answer. In other words, a "Paragraph 1" acquittal. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the media were reporting Maresca's "creative" interpretation of the ruling, rather than anything explicitly issued by the SC itself.


Here is more proof that there is a difference between paragraph one and two acquittals.

Bill, LJ, and Numbers you'd have to agree, right?

Btw - the above quote was written by LJ when the discussion started on which paragraph was used.

 

[Grinder]

This was Katy_did's response to LJ

What they would normally say is "acquittal for not having committed the offence, with reference to para 2, Article whatever it is" (only with the number, obviously). If there's no reference to paragraph 2, then it's usually a paragraph 1 acquittal. The media seem to be saying specifically that the judge made reference to paragraph 2, not just that it was an acquittal for insufficient evidence (which is what Maresca said), so I'm not sure they're simply twisting his words. But we'll know for definite when the dispositivo emerges.

I was discussing this with Luca (Cheli) yesterday, and he said that insufficient evidence carries a wide range of meanings, from almost enough to convict to hardly any evidence at all, so we'll have to wait till the ruling comes out to know exactly what kind of acquittal it is.

 

[acbytesla]

Sure

I agree with Desert Fox on this Grinder. It's not that it is impossible in that space, it's that there would be clear evidence of other people in that small room. Granted, this is all speculation. Anyone can build a scenario that ten people were in the room during the murder. But there would be evidence of more than just Rudy.

 

[Bill Williams]

But at the same time, the overwhelmingly prevailing opinion was that if this was a "reasonable doubt" case in the eyes of the SC, then the case would without doubt have been sent back down to the appeal court level for (yet) another trial. The fact that this didn't happen, and that the SC totally acquitted, would seem to strongly support a belief that the SC ruled that there was entirely no case to answer. In other words, a "Paragraph 1" acquittal. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the media were reporting Maresca's "creative" interpretation of the ruling, rather than anything explicitly issued by the SC itself.


Here is more proof that there is a difference between paragraph one and two acquittals.

Bill, LJ, and Numbers you'd have to agree, right?

Btw - the above quote was written by LJ when the discussion started on which paragraph was used.

What the above demonstrates is that you and I have very differing ideas about what "proof" entails.

My reading of the above is that there is a definition of a paragraph 1 acquittal, and that a paragraph 2 acquittal includes what's in paragraph 1 as well as everything else.

As Numbers and LJ suggest, though - the compelling issue is the refusal to remand and to acquit right there. That is head and shoulders more suggestive of Panel #5's take on the legal process in front of it, than the gnat-pooh in the pepper......

 

[Grinder]

I agree with Desert Fox on this Grinder. It's not that it is impossible in that space, it's that there would be clear evidence of other people in that small room. Granted, this is all speculation. Anyone can build a scenario that ten people were in the room during the murder. But there would be evidence of more than just Rudy.

And if the room were 150 sq ft or 2000 sq ft there would be just as much likelihood of evidence maybe more because there would have been so much more to clean

The scenario is what reeks not the size of the room.

And 90% of Seattle thinks that Bertha was a complete mistake so you must agree.

 

[sept79]

And if the room were 150 sq ft or 2000 sq ft there would be just as much likelihood of evidence maybe more because there would have been so much more to clean

"to clean" -- as in distinguishing which evidence of presence to leave and which to remove?

 

[Grinder]

What the above demonstrates is that you and I have very differing ideas about what "proof" entails.

My reading of the above is that there is a definition of a paragraph 1 acquittal, and that a paragraph 2 acquittal includes what's in paragraph 1 as well as everything else.

As Numbers and LJ suggest, though - the compelling issue is the refusal to remand and to acquit right there. That is head and shoulders more suggestive of Panel #5's take on the legal process in front of it, than the gnat-pooh in the pepper......

Happy to walk you through this. Back in March of 2015 LJ proclaimed that the verdict MUST be a paragraph 1 or else it would have been sent down. That clearly demonstrates he understood the difference between 1 and 2 and felt there was significance in the difference. You have used him as backing for your position that 1 doesn't really exist and that a 2 is just as good as a 1. But back in the day before the 2 came out, he fully accepted the difference without reference to reform oversights or other less than flattering remarks about my understandings.

Not only the quote he provided but katy_did's (which he didn't argue with) show clearly that she too agreed and most likely still does as well as Luca (whom she called) clearly show you are incorrect and his current position is also incorrect.

As I have been saying PIPs were sure it was a one and that the media (LJ blamed Maresca) had it wrong because they didn't understand the difference between the paras. The media and Maresca had it right.

 

[Grinder]

"to clean" -- as in distinguishing which evidence of presence to leave and which to remove?

Yes of course

The scenario of the multiple attackers in the room at the same time is bogus but not because of the room size. Multiple perps only necessitates 4 in the room in the minds of the PGP.