Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

In the UK if a person complains about a barrister tampering with a witness, that barrister will be investigated and possibly hauled before a disciplinary board. If he or she has no response to the charges they may find they are struck off and barred from practising.

Bongiorno said she was going to sue Aviello for claiming she offered him €100K to pervert justice. She has never got round to it. This casts an aspersion on her integrity, as it suggests she is not going to sue him, because he has ample proof. For Kokomani to independently make the same claim... well, as Oscar Wilde said, "To lose one parent, Mr Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness."

Why wasn't she investigated and convicted? Were the judges (In Italy the prosecutor is also a judge) just being nice again?

But she "lied" when she said she was going to sue so by PGP logic she probably killed Meredith.

 

[analemma]

Raffaele Sollecito Gets Gig as TV Crime Expert in Italy
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/raffaele-sollecito-gets-gig-tv-crime-expert-italy-n551596
Just saw this
Raffaele becomes the Nancy Grace of Italy.
Might tend to frustrate the Guilters

Raffaele said 'I have been a victim of a miscarriage of justice, I know the faults of the justice system, what happens in jail and what happens when the media twists the truth.
'The usual experts on these shows have seen things through a window - I have lived them.'

Paul Landry, the director of the channel, (said) 'Sollecito was finally acquitted by the Supreme Court, has been in prison, he faced all levels. He's knows the machine of justice better than all of us.'

This is GREAT: Now Vixen can just ask "the expert" any questions Vixen has about the Italian Justice System!!!!!!!!!!!

He's knows the machine of justice better than all of us.

This is priceless.

I cannot wait for the reaction on the guilter sites

 

[acbytesla]

LOL. Whatever next? Jeff Dahmer, cookery presenter; Ed Gein, interior decorator reporter; Ted Bundy, Millionaire Matchmaker candidate; Jodie Arias, Real Housewives of US Penitentiaries; Timothy McVeigh, Big Bang Theory star...?

Do Italian viewers really want to see Raff's smug supercillious face on every episode of Mystery of the Week.

"Well, you see, Guiseppe, it's the bent police, who are all corrupt."

No, it's more like Gerry Conlon, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Dr. Sam Sheppard. As for whether the Italian people want to see Raffaele every week only time will tell. But stranger things have happened in my life. I've seen actors and comedians elected Governors, Senators even President.

I think it is great that Raffaele is getting this opportunity. He provides a perspective that others simply cannot offer.

 

[analemma]

"Well, you see, Guiseppe, it's the bent police, who are all corrupt."

Guiseppe, and everyone else in Italy, KNOWS how corrupt the Italian Police are.
Raffaele is perfect, since he was kidnapped by the Italian justice system for seven years.
I am wondering how the ugly trolls on TJMK and exam iner are taking this????
That will be the REAL "Hitler Bunker" scene.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Smell the coffee, NEW, smell the coffee. Learn to discern ********.

Thank you for your input and the value you add to this discussion Vixen. Let's take a look at this reply first.

Scenario a) Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and Rudy Guede team up, motivated by Halloween, the atmosphere of this neopagan holiday, and Raffaele's interest in vampire manga. Despite the fact they do not know Rudy, they plan to go out on Halloween (bringing a chef's knife from Raffaele's kitchen) and force Meredith into a sex game. They see Rudy. Sweet! Let's bring this random dude we don't know. "Hey Rudy want to come?" "Sure!!"

They get to the house and kill Meredith in a vampire manga orgy that got a little out of hand. With a chef's knife. From Raffaele's kitchen. Didn't leave DNA of Amanda and Raffaele. Left evidence of Rudy everywhere. Must have brought those new DNA X-Ray goggles and spot cleaned. Found a great deal on the home shopping network and thought why not? Maybe we'll be involved in a vampire murder orgy so we'll need to spot clean traces of our DNA. Rudy, in passing, mentioned he likes to break into buildings by throwing rocks through 2nd floor windows. Amanda and Raffaele think "sweet! let's frame the black dude". They leave with their invisibility cloaks so as not to appear on CCTV footage. They forget to give one to Rudy though so he shows up. Fade to black. Vixen is on the case so there is no way they will get away with this!

Scenario b) Rudy breaks into the second floor window by throwing a rock. Same as he did 2 weeks prior. He climbs through. Hangs out for a bit. Meredith shows up. Things escalate and he kills her. Poor police investigation and bias follows. Amanda and Raffaele are ultimately acquitted. This is corroborated by all of the evidence analysis done by the forensic experts who were NOT working for the prosecution. The only forensic scientists whose analysis supports the prosecution are working for the prosecution. Everyone else (including the founding father of forensic genetics) has explained clearly and accurately why the forensic evidence used against Amanda and Raffaele was biased, faulty, and incorrectly interpreted.


Now Vixen you are saying that scenario "a" is what happened and I need to discern "********". ******** like, presumably, the scenario outlined in "b".

Is that correct?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

What's included in a trial is agreed beforehand, otherwise it could meander all over the place.

Also, this reply dodges my question.

You have said, in the past, that the trial has more information than the public. So we are logically required to accept the conclusions they reach, and should not analyze the evidence ourselves using critical thinking and come to our own conclusions.

Now, you are saying this:

A lot of things were left out of the trial. Th trial is pretty much a script written in stone for each party.

More interesting for me is the true story and not the approximation.

Now you are saying the trial process proceeds with LESS information and is only a "script written in stone". So, does the public have MORE or LESS information regarding the crime than the individuals involved in the trial? You are contradicting yourself.

I get the impression you do not care about logical consistency with your arguments. Or you are incapable of being logically consistent. You just pluck whatever argument you think sounds the best at the time out of thin air, and hope people smarter than you don't realize how ridiculous it all is.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Italian police, actually being very bright, didn't follow this line of reasoning at all. Your logical fallacy = false premises.

Vixen,
I am interested in your conversation with PhantomWolf as well. Can you explain, as clearly as possible, where the Italian police's reasoning differed from what PhantomWolf proposed? Include what the police believed they knew AT THE TIME (the timing is very important), and what their actual reasoning was.

Also, what logical fallacy are you accusing PhantomWolf of committing? He just went through a scenario. Do you know what a "logical fallacy" is?

The way you think is absolutely fascinating to me, Vixen. Thank you for posting.

 

[Stacyhs]

It doesn't matter how she was bleeding, it's that she happened to be bleeding the same time as Mez. She must have been there within half an hour of Mez dying for it still to be liquid enough to mix. Blood clots fast."

News flash, Vixen; people can bleed at different times, just as they can leave DNA at different times. Even Stefanoni testified to that:

"with specific reference to the traces on the sink and on the bidet, she stated, as can be read in the ruling on page 228 'that they were dry and it was impossible to date them or to determine if the trace attributable to Knox was left first and then that attributable to the victim, or the other way around' ”.

What part of this are you not understanding?


"Five mixed DNA samples, some of which had more of Amanda's than Mez', suggesting a rich source, such as copious bleeding for there to be so much (white blood cells)."

WHICH samples had more of Amanda's than Meredith's DNA? Identify them.

Only three samples contained blood; all from the shared bathroom. The samples in FR's room tested negative for blood. Rep 176 had Amanda only as a "minor contributor".
Of the three bathroom samples, rep 66 (bidet) had much more of Meredith's DNA than Amanda's.


"Whose fair hair do you reckon it was?"

As I said, Amanda was chemically lightening her hair which is easily discernible in hair. If these hairs had shown a chemical process, that would be circumstantial evidence and used by the prosecution. It never was. Why do you think that was?

"What was Amanda's and Rudy's DNA alleles doing on Mez' bra fabric?"

As Dr. Balding found, Amanda's DNA was not on the bra:

"Using this uncertain designation for the six subthreshold alleles, the estimated dropout rate for Knox is close to 100%. A separate analysis with her as the queried contributor returned an LR < 1, also favoring a conclusion of no DNA from her."

"Whose finger marks on Mez' face and neck?"

Guede's. As was previously pointed out to you, male vs. female fingerprints are not discernible...especially from bruises.

"Whose size 37 shoeprint? Not Rudy's for sure as he'd never be able to cram his size 43's into such a narrow heel, never mind midfoot.

As Prof. Vinci correctly found, there was no size 37 woman's shoeprint. It was a partial print of Guede's shoe. The sole pattern matched.

No matter how hard you try, you cannot make the facts fit your theory. Time to get rid of the theory.

 

[Stacyhs]

"Even Bruno-Marasca found it insurmountaby suspicious that Amanda told police Patrick raped and murdered Mez, when he was completely innocent."

Dealing with past ISC confirmed "judicial truths" is a sticky wicket for the Italian courts.

 

[Stacyhs]

It was her table lamp found on the floor of the murder room (that's another trace she was there) yet it was wiped clean of all fingerprints.

Raff's car was wiped free of any of his DNA.

Go figure.

Her lamp in Meredith's room is not an indication Amanda was there at all. Since Amanda has spent the last 6 nights at Raff's, Meredith herself may have borrowed the lamp for better lighting at her desk.

The prosecution's own fingerprint expert, Guiseppe Privitera, testified he saw no indications of any intentional fingerprint clean up.

You cannot "wipe clean" DNA from surfaces unless you use bleach. Are you now claiming that Raff washed the entire car interior with bleach? That would have done one hell of a job on the leather or upholstery. Funny that none was noted.

 

[Stacyhs]

Do read the pathologists' reports.

Do quote the report where he says any such thing. It certainly isn't noted in Nencini's MR which goes extensively into what the pathologist wrote. Nor is it mentioned in the summation of the pathology report in Massei's MR. Both reports talk about the bruising around the jaw. Neither mentions them being left by a female.

Somehow, I don't think you'll be able to provide that quote.

 

[bagels]

It doesn't matter how stupid the average cops were, and they are not known for being superbrainy, it's what the detectives make of it all. To rise in the police ranks, you do have to have a modicum of observational skills. In the UK many are fast-tracked from the brightest and best graduates each year.

A good detective is always one step ahead of the criminal, rather like a chess player: they have to think like a crook.

Whilst a rookie cop might victimise minorities, when it comes to solving crimes - which is the criteria regional police forces are judged on - it's not much use arresting and charging the wrong person, who anyway likely has an alibi and none of the forensics match. The onus will be on the police to show there is just cause to refer a case to trial. In the UK it has to get past the Crown Prosecution Service. All police stations have duty solicitors who are on call to be assigned to persons being arrested. It is highly regulated and unlikely any individual cop can bend a charge and frame some random person.

Having been told by this convincing young American woman who put on a good act of being terrified of Patrick, that this was their man, and some of them having seen the corpse, I am sure some of them might well have been incensed enough to hurl abuse at Patrick, which anyway they would have had to do behind their bosses' backs, given the extreme cruelty involved in the murder.

Even Bruno-Marasca found it insurmountaby suspicious that Amanda told police Patrick raped and murdered Mez, when he was completely innocent.

Actually this convincing young woman put on a good act of being terrified during the police interrogation because she was, by the police lol

 

[analemma]

Guiseppe, and everyone else in Italy, KNOWS how corrupt the Italian Police are.
Raffaele is perfect, since he was kidnapped by the Italian justice system for seven years.
I am wondering how the ugly trolls on TJMK and exam iner are taking this????
That will be the REAL "Hitler Bunker" scene.

Paolo Liguori, TgCom24 network director, told the newspaper Corriere della Sera, the British newspaper The Telegraph reported Thursday.. "He will be able to recount his ordeal."
Liguori added that Sollecito was more credible than the "pretty girls" typically hired by Italian reality programs.
"I often ask myself, what experience do they have? How can they graduate at 26 and by the age of 30 be experts in criminology?" he said.
The ugly troll at exam iner is pissing herself.

 

[Stacyhs]

"No more ridiculous than the idea that if you can't find the receipt you cannot prove they bought it. Hello, it's under the sink. "

Of course Raff bought the bleach...it just wasn't bought by Amanda on Nov 2. Hello?

How do you explain the fact that Quintavalle had no record of any bleach sales that morning? From his testimony:

"Quintavalle: Yes, they asked about the Ace bleach and they asked me for my cash register record, the daily book let’s call it where all the sales are recorded, the roll of receipts, because one is given to the customer and one remains in the book, so to speak. And they took it to see on which day there had been the purchase of Ace bleach at 1.09."

 

[analemma]

NEWS FLASH
Rome - Italy

Raffaele Sollecito & Amanda Knox appointed to the Italian Supreme Court

Giuliano Mignini imprisoned for 26 Years

Peter Quennell commits seppuku

Rudi Guede now Managing Editor of Examiner.com​

 

[Planigale]

It doesn't matter how she was bleeding, it's that she happened to be bleeding the same time as Mez. She must have been there within half an hour of Mez dying for it still to be liquid enough to mix. Blood clots fast.

Five mixed DNA samples, some of which had more of Amanda's than Mez', suggesting a rich source, such as copious bleeding for there to be so much (white blood cells).

Whose fair hair do you reckon it was?

What was Amanda's and Rudy's DNA alleles doing on Mez' bra fabric?

Whose finger marks on Mez' face and neck?

Whose size 37 shoeprint? Not Rudy's for sure as he'd never be able to cram his size 43's into such a narrow heel, never mind midfoot.

I have previously tried to explain to you what this means. I suspect you will ignore me, but if I have explained it to you, you cannot later deny you have not been told.

1) mixed DNA means that the DNA extract contains DNA from two or more people.

It does not mean that the DNA was from a source that contained a mixture of DNA. Two of the 'mixed DNA' results were from the basin and the bidet in the bathroom. Rep 137 and 66. Now look at the video of their collection.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Videos/police_video_november_3_2007_part2.mp4 about 1 min 50 and 3 min 50.
Note how Steffanoni swabs the bowl of the basin then the rim with the same swab. The DNA from Kercher and Knox may have been completely separate, one on the rim and one in the bowl. The same is true if you look at the swab of the bidet, the swab was wiped around the drain then around the rim. There is no way one can know the location of the DNA within the extent of the wiping. One definitely cannot say that the DNA of Knox and Kercher was co-located.

Also note how Steffanoni holds the swabs in her gloved hands. Note the folds of the gloves across the back of her hand and at the wrist. She does not change gloves between samples. She could have transferred DNA from one swab / site to another. Also note how she uses metal (non disposable) tweezers for picking the hair out of the basin.

As Steffanoni says herself. Even assuming the DNA is co-located, one cannot determine the order or time of deposition. Mixed DNA does not mean mingled DNA. More likely is layered. There could be DNA of person A from epithelials (an excellent source of DNA) then a drop of blood on top. Or vice versa. Mouth epithelials are an excellent source of DNA. My guess is the DNA from the basin will be epithelials from the mouth from teeth brushing.

So I am afraid this obsession you have with how the blood has to be wet is just a misunderstanding of what is meant by mixed DNA. It is mixed in the extract, it does not mean the DNA was mingled in one spot prior to being collected.

 

[Planigale]

A firm I worked for was involved in investigating worldwide "carousel" fraud, recouping HMRC and the British tax payer £'000m worth of misappropriated VAT, not to mention TOMS VAT in the travel industry, I'd say I am as informed as any.

I didn't want to bother the forum's pretty little head with the finer minutiae of the different types, so well done in knowing of them. Well spotted.

To be fair it is what comes of having an ACCA as a father; a childhood of VAT table talk.

 

[Grinder]

I have previously tried to explain to you what this means. I suspect you will ignore me, but if I have explained it to you, you cannot later deny you have not been told.

1) mixed DNA means that the DNA extract contains DNA from two or more people.

It does not mean that the DNA was from a source that contained a mixture of DNA. Two of the 'mixed DNA' results were from the basin and the bidet in the bathroom. Rep 137 and 66. Now look at the video of their collection.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Videos/police_video_november_3_2007_part2.mp4 about 1 min 50 and 3 min 50.
Note how Steffanoni swabs the bowl of the basin then the rim with the same swab. The DNA from Kercher and Knox may have been completely separate, one on the rim and one in the bowl. The same is true if you look at the swab of the bidet, the swab was wiped around the drain then around the rim. There is no way one can know the location of the DNA within the extent of the wiping. One definitely cannot say that the DNA of Knox and Kercher was co-located.

Also note how Steffanoni holds the swabs in her gloved hands. Note the folds of the gloves across the back of her hand and at the wrist. She does not change gloves between samples. She could have transferred DNA from one swab / site to another. Also note how she uses metal (non disposable) tweezers for picking the hair out of the basin.

As Steffanoni says herself. Even assuming the DNA is co-located, one cannot determine the order or time of deposition. Mixed DNA does not mean mingled DNA. More likely is layered. There could be DNA of person A from epithelials (an excellent source of DNA) then a drop of blood on top. Or vice versa. Mouth epithelials are an excellent source of DNA. My guess is the DNA from the basin will be epithelials from the mouth from teeth brushing.

So I am afraid this obsession you have with how the blood has to be wet is just a misunderstanding of what is meant by mixed DNA. It is mixed in the extract, it does not mean the DNA was mingled in one spot prior to being collected.

What do you think about the knife having only the DNA of Amanda and not Raf? If he used the knife at all or just moved it around to access other knives I would think his DNA should be on the knife. Since the knife would have been cleaned well to get all the blood off, I have always thought Amanda's DNA on it would more meaningless than Meredith's. Even though I totally doubt Meredith's was on the knife, if we say that somehow the 1/100,000 of a grain of table salt sample wedged in a microscopic groove that couldn't be true for Amanda's DNA as she wouldn't have perform anything that would have wedged it near the handle. The only conclusion possible is that her DNA was put there after the cleaning so it wouldn't be evidence of her using it to kill anybody.

Very strange that only the tiny amounts of Meredith and Amanda were found on the knife and even stranger that it never came up.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Good lord, don't any of you people work for a living? The case is over. They are innocent. It's over. Done. Stick a fork in it.

 

[bagels]

What do you think about the knife having only the DNA of Amanda and not Raf? If he used the knife at all or just moved it around to access other knives I would think his DNA should be on the knife. Since the knife would have been cleaned well to get all the blood off, I have always thought Amanda's DNA on it would more meaningless than Meredith's. Even though I totally doubt Meredith's was on the knife, if we say that somehow the 1/100,000 of a grain of table salt sample wedged in a microscopic groove that couldn't be true for Amanda's DNA as she wouldn't have perform anything that would have wedged it near the handle. The only conclusion possible is that her DNA was put there after the cleaning so it wouldn't be evidence of her using it to kill anybody.

Very strange that only the tiny amounts of Meredith and Amanda were found on the knife and even stranger that it never came up.

There are times when I question if the blood on the tap was Amanda's, not that it matters. This case was so poorly managed.