ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old 18th June 2019, 08:25 AM   #201
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,204
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
1. Of course, the police were convinced that Amanda was guilty of Meredith's murder because, according to his testimony before the Massei court, VQA Giobbi had observed that Amanda had wriggled her hips when she put protective shoe covers on. That's why she was a suspect, he said. What more evidence would anyone need that a female was guilty of murder?

2. Regarding when the police and prosecutor knew that neither Lumumba's nor Raffaele's DNA had matched the rape kit DNA profile: Their DNA samples were collected on Nov. 6. It took some time for those samples to be sent to the Scientific Police in Rome for testing, and for the tests to be completed. The results would have been available probably no sooner than Nov. 7, and would have been known to the police and prosecutor as of the justification of arrest hearing on Nov. 8. Yet, apparently the prosecutor said nothing about them to the magistrate, although according to Italian procedural law (CPP Article 358), the prosecutor must disclose ("ascertain") evidence in the accused's favor as well as the evidence against the accused.
Per the Amanda Knox Case website;

"All of the samples in plate 357 were quantified via Qubit Flourometer (at the very end of the Batch). The ID and Plate numbers indicate that the corresponding plate was pushed ahead of other plates in the cue for capillary electrophoresis, indicating extreme urgency to process the included reference samples for Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba;"

Plate 357 was part of Batch One, which was completed between 5-6 Nov.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 08:46 AM   #202
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,870
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Per the Amanda Knox Case website;

"All of the samples in plate 357 were quantified via Qubit Flourometer (at the very end of the Batch). The ID and Plate numbers indicate that the corresponding plate was pushed ahead of other plates in the cue for capillary electrophoresis, indicating extreme urgency to process the included reference samples for Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba;"

Plate 357 was part of Batch One, which was completed between 5-6 Nov.
The fluorometer only quantifies the amount of DNA in the samples.

The DNA profiling is a separate step that follows the quantification step.

I went back to amandaknoxcase.com and I agree that the DNA profiling of the reference samples for Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba was most likely completed on Nov. 6.

It would surely have been completed and analyzed by the next day and the results - no matches to the rape kit - communicated to the prosecutor and probably to the ranking police. (Under Italian law, the prosecutor is in charge of the police investigation during an active case.)

Here are some of the important points from the analysis in that section of amandaknoxcase.com:

The prosecution hid the results of early and decisive DNA tests excluding Raffaele Sollecito as the sexual assailant, securing on improper grounds the pre-trial incarceration of Sollecito and Knox (and Lumumba) to the severe prejudice of the defense;

The prosecution concealed the initial results for tests performed on the two key items of evidence, i.e., the kitchen knife (Rep. 36b) and the bra clasp (Rep. 165b), and instead, produced only the results of suspicious “do over” tests (re-runs), without disclosing the data from the initial tests or even the fact that the subsequent tests were “do overs”;

The prosecution concealed that the kitchen knife profile was generated within a set of tests for which 90% of the results have been suppressed, strongly suggesting the occurrence of a severe contamination event that the prosecution continues to hide;

The prosecution claimed that contamination of the bra clasp was impossible, even though the bra clasp profile was produced during a set of tests for which there is documented proof of contamination;

The prosecution falsely portrayed the DNA laboratory as pristine and perfectly maintained, even though the lab’s own documents demonstrate that it was plagued with repeated contamination events and machine malfunctions that were known to the lab;

The prosecution has withheld the results from a massive number of DNA tests (well over 100), including probably exculpatory profiles relating to the sexual assault and a secondary crime scene downstairs;

The prosecution has hidden all of the records of the DNA amplification process—the most likely place for laboratory contamination to have occurred—including all of the contamination-control tests for this process


There are three major plates, Nos. 354, 355, and 357, which contain a total of 48 profiles, 14 of which are suppressed, for a suppression rate of 29%;

The missing profiles correspond to: 5 traces attributed to “cat’s blood” (which nevertheless quantified positive for human DNA and were subjected to STR amplification), 2 traces representing the male fraction of the semen samples, 2 traces from the lightswitch downstairs, 2 negative controls, 1 sample of Guede’s feces, and 2 traces for which there is no record;

Samples of Guede’s DNA were detected in the vaginal swab and feces samples on 6 November 2007. At this time, Sollecito and Lumumba were ruled out as suspects in the sexual assault;

All of the samples in plate 357 were quantified via Qubit Flourometer (at the very end of the Batch). The ID and Plate numbers indicate that the corresponding plate was pushed ahead of other plates in the cue for capillary electrophoresis, indicating extreme urgency to process the included reference samples for Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba;

Rep. 14 (Sample hair formations taken from the external part of the vagina of the victim) and Rep. 29 (Lumumba Reference Swab) are missing and not in the SAL.

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/

Last edited by Numbers; 18th June 2019 at 09:04 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 09:33 AM   #203
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,096
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
And let's not forget the knife wasn't even a match for the wounds.
Remember all the talk about a second knife, as in the bloody outline of a presumed knife on the victim's bedsheets didn't match the knife plucked from Raffaele's kitchen drawer?

Except that all of a sudden at the 2013 re-trial at the Appeals Court level in Florence, then-prosecutor Crini simply announced that that knife plucked from Raffaele's suddenly was a match - 6 years later. Crini offered no forensics to back this up, simply announced it.

Which also brings back memories of why Frank Sfarzo, in his English-language blog "Perugia Shock", switched his views on guilt.

He'd gone down to the cottage, and asked a cop why they were not searching the vast tree'd area below and to the ENE. The answer which surprised Sfarzo was, "We already have a knife."

Then it became apparent that that knife matched nothing at the crime scene, not the wounds and not the bloody outline on the sheet. (If nothing else, this belongs to the long list of things which the 2015 exonerating court cited as "investigative amnesia".)

Sfarzo's trademark snark in Perugia Shock shifted from the two accused to the prosecution and police. To Sfarzo, the lazy incompetent police weren't even investigating the case. Michael Winterbottom portrayed this in his 2014 feature film, "Face of an Angel". In the film, W. even had Barbie Nadeau's character confess that all the journalists had had to read Sfarzo's blog each day just to keep up.

All of this was typical of the way the various prosecutors and convicting courts had had to move things around as factoids fell apart, to still justify convicting.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 18th June 2019 at 09:39 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 09:52 AM   #204
sept79
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Several reasons;

1. 36B tested negative for blood, negative for human species and negative for DNA ("too low" multiple times on the qubit fluorometer). It had the exact same lab results as sample 36C, which was classified as negative and filed away. There was nothing there. It should never have undergone amplification.

2. The knife was improperly handled, being removed from it's collection bag at the police station, where other items containing Meredith's DNA had been. It should have remained sealed until it got to the lab. This introduces the possibility of contamination, rendering any results obtained unreliable.

3. The DNA was LCN and Stefanoni's lab was not certified for LCN profiling. None of the standard precautions to avoid contamination were followed. LCN profiling should be done in a lab that has not previously tested the target DNA.

4. The sample supposedly survived within a striation on the blade that could never be found.

5. The sample was collected toward the tip of the knife, which is the easiest area of the knife to clean. If it was cleaned so thoroughly that nothing could be found at the joint between blade and handle, how did something survive out towards the tip? How were all traces of blood removed yet DNA survived? Blood is more resistant to bleach than DNA.

And let's not forget the knife wasn't even a match for the wounds.


Was this incompetence? Or, were results rigged in order to assist the prosecutor? Or, were results rigged as requested by the prosecutor?
sept79 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 10:33 AM   #205
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,204
Originally Posted by sept79 View Post
Was this incompetence? Or, were results rigged in order to assist the prosecutor? Or, were results rigged as requested by the prosecutor?
I'm not one for conspiracy theories so I don't believe the results were rigged. But I do believe Stefanoni was essentially told to keep testing until they came up with something. I'm all but certain the egram for 36B is nothing more than lab contamination, and I suspect the suppressed results would have proven this. This also would confirm this was a deliberate effort to implicate Amanda and Raffaele.

I have no doubt that had the knife been tested by a neutral lab the results would have indicated a typical kitchen knife, used by Amanda to prepare food. It would not have been linked to the crime.

The prosecution was desperate to link Amanda to the crime and you can see that in the evidence they presented; the knife, Amanda's DNA in her own bathroom, Luminol positive prints proven not to be made with Meredith's blood, her infamous kiss and the 'tada', eating pizza. Everything is a massive stretch, that can only appear to be connected to the crime if you start out believing as much and go from there.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 11:05 AM   #206
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Samples of Guede’s DNA were detected in the vaginal swab and feces samples on 6 November 2007. At this time, Sollecito and Lumumba were ruled out as suspects in the sexual assault;
Post #202

As Lumumba was arrested on Nov. 6, was it even possible that a DNA test could be analyzed that quickly? From what I can find, currently it takes 24-72 hours to obtain test results. Was that quick of a return even possible in 2007?

According to Burleigh,

Quote:
By November 11, police revealed to selected reporters that there was “a fourth man” involved. According to the London Telegraph, he was “a North African musician” who could be seen in parking garage video footage heading toward the murder house just before nine at night. The man was not Moroccan, he was not a musician, and he would be identified not by the faulty video cameras of the parking lot but by his own fingerprints. As soon as the National Scientific Police had the prints, the Perugia police had his name. It didn’t take long to find him.
This, along with Knox's 'memoriale' of Nov. 6 in which she clearly says her statements regarding Lumumba can't be relied upon as true, should have made the police realize they had the wrong man; Lumumba was not involved. But they still did not release him until Nov. 19.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 11:11 AM   #207
TomG
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Agreed. The most simple and obvious explanation is usually the right one. Not always, but usually.
Agreed! to a certain extent, but I believe that "good old fashioned human fallibility" was the basis for the "sophisticated conspiracy" against K&S. This case was a no-brainer to solve but Mignini, Comodi et.al. introduced Kafka, and here we are 12 years later still trying to work it out.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 11:12 AM   #208
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,012
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I'm not one for conspiracy theories so I don't believe the results were rigged. But I do believe Stefanoni was essentially told to keep testing until they came up with something. I'm all but certain the egram for 36B is nothing more than lab contamination, and I suspect the suppressed results would have proven this. This also would confirm this was a deliberate effort to implicate Amanda and Raffaele.

I have no doubt that had the knife been tested by a neutral lab the results would have indicated a typical kitchen knife, used by Amanda to prepare food. It would not have been linked to the crime.

The prosecution was desperate to link Amanda to the crime and you can see that in the evidence they presented; the knife, Amanda's DNA in her own bathroom, Luminol positive prints proven not to be made with Meredith's blood, her infamous kiss and the 'tada', eating pizza. Everything is a massive stretch, that can only appear to be connected to the crime if you start out believing as much and go from there.
I agree with this. However, I also cannot help but suspect that the Italian macho cultural need to 'save face', especially in such a highly publicized case, played into their refusal to admit error and to dig their heels in. It may not have even been a conscious decision, but a subconscious one.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 11:32 AM   #209
TomG
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
What we have here is a very exciting discussion which, due to lack of sufficient evidence about what the police, including the scientific police, and the prosecution did, and when did they do or not do it, cannot be resolved beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why I am, as I stated earlier, agnostic about the proposition (which is not itself completely unreasonable, IMO) that the police knew from day 1 that Rudy Guede was Meredith's murder.

What I had meant in my earlier statement (the first quote above) was, I believe, in agreement with what TruthCalls is claiming. My view is that the police and prosecutor decided early on - by about day 2 or 3 - that they had "convenient suspects" in Amanda and Raffaele. I think that TomG means essentially the same when he calls them "soft targets" for the police and prosecutor.

When the police phone intercerpts revealed to them that Amanda's mom was coming to Italy November 6 in order to support her, they decided they had to move to force Raffaele to abandon Amanda's alibi, and if, possible, to incriminate both of them in the murder. While according to an arrest hearing magistrate this was because the police and prosecutor thought that they had to move quickly because Amanda's mom would be taking her back to the US, it is perhaps more likely they feared her mother's experience and influence would lead Amanda to get a lawyer, and this would ruin the plan for coercing her confession.

Did the police and/or prosecutor know as of Nov. 5/6 that Rudy Guede was the murderer? Were they trying to protect him at that time? That doesn't necessarily matter for their scheme. They needed results fast, and Amanda and Raffaele were available, naive, and had no lawyers. The police and prosecutor chose either: 1) not to spend time searching for some unknown male who had broken into the flat and who may have left a DNA profile, or 2) not to apprehend Guede, who they would have suspected because of the break-in MO, because he was under their protection and/or that of the wealthiest and most powerful family in Perugia.

Once it became absolutely clear that Lumumba could not be pulled into the fabrication, and that there was forensic and witness evidence (Guede's buddy who told the police about his Skype conversation with Guede) against Guede, the police and prosecutor did everything possible to minimize Guede's involvement and punishment and maximize their fabrication against Amanda and Raffaele.

We also should note that we have no documented evidence (as far as I know) that the police were aware of the semen stain on the pillow before the defense called it to attention. Whether they were aware of it or not, the prosecution was dead set against DNA profile testing it once it was known. And the courts supported this travesty of not testing a semen stain found on a pillow under a raped murder victim's body.
The way I see it is that Mignini and the cops made a decision on the discovery of break-in that the act had been staged, they therefore didn't treat Filomena's room as a bona-fide crime scene. We've all seen Ron Hendry's analysis and evaluated it for ourselves, and there's no reason whatsoever to conclude that the break-in was staged, it's so freaking obviously authentic. Why would Mignini come to such a bizarre conclusion if it wasn't to protect Rudy?

On that day the theory of the staged break-in gave birth to the factoid that someone was being protected, otherwise there is no use for the theory; however, in reality, there is only evidence of an actual break-in and no reason at all to conclude that anyone was being protected. For me this is a case of simple Freudian projection. Rudy had been useful to the cops, now he was a liability, he had to be foisted on to others with K&S being the most vulnerable candidates. If Mignini hadn't been so compromised he'd have went with an actual break-in and then waited for all the lab results to come in. There would have been no reason to railroad K&S.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.

Last edited by TomG; 18th June 2019 at 11:40 AM.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 11:59 AM   #210
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,096
The very first pair of investigative blunders, made early afternoon, Nov 2, 2007. These were real boners:
1. Thinking the break-in had to have been staged because they couldn't imagine anyone climbing up to Filomena's window. They didn't even test their hypothesis. (Years' later an Italian TV program duplicated the climb.)


2. Being unable to imagine the "condition" of the cottage that Knox had seen in that morning, that was enough to raise some sort of alarm (calls to roommates, to Seattle, to Raffaele's then-Carabinieri sister) but with nothing which said "murder", because the victim's door was locked.

Other than the postal police, every other investigator first saw an obvious murder scene. (Not even the postal police suspected murder, even refusing to bust down the door.)
The "investigative amnesia" started right from the beginning.

Then Mignini ordered body temperature NOT be taken, thus clouding investigation of time-of-death.

Then - video shows Stefanoni at the scene being suspicious of the presumed semen stain under the victim's hips; then somewhere down the line did not test it to either verify or ID the man who'd left it.

As an aside, the stupidest on-line comment was one from a nutter who blamed "the defence" for all these failures.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 12:04 PM   #211
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,012
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
The way I see it is that Mignini and the cops made a decision on the discovery of break-in that the act had been staged they therefore didn't treat Filomena's room as a bona-fide crime scene. We've all seen Ron Hendry's analysis and evaluated it for ourselves, and there's no reason whatsoever to conclude that the break-in was staged, it's so freaking obviously authentic. Why would Mignini come to such a bizarre conclusion if it wasn't to protect Rudy?
Because they immediately made incorrect assumptions and judgments. Follain wrote:

Quote:
He looked into Filomena’s room and like Napoleoni before him, he noticed the shards of glass on top of the piles of clothes and the large stone on the floor; it was obvious to him too that it could never have come through the window without shattering the shutters. He thought immediately that the window must have been broken by someone standing inside the room. ‘There’s a traitor in this house, someone who participated in the crime or helped to cover it up or who did both,’ Mignini thought to himself. Perhaps the killer had entered through the front door, and staged a fake burglary to throw suspicion on an outsider, assisted by someone living in the cottage – in either of the two flats – who at the very least, acted as an accomplice to the murder.
That 'traitor' was a female since only a woman would cover the body according to Mignini.

Mignini, with Holmes-like observation skills noted that Amanda would
Quote:
occasionally put both hands up to press her temples and then shake her head. It was as if, he thought, she wanted to empty her mind of something.

And don't forget that he also became suspicious of Knox because she was 'canoodling' with Raff.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 12:27 PM   #212
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,870
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Post #202

As Lumumba was arrested on Nov. 6, was it even possible that a DNA test could be analyzed that quickly? From what I can find, currently it takes 24-72 hours to obtain test results. Was that quick of a return even possible in 2007?

According to Burleigh,



This, along with Knox's 'memoriale' of Nov. 6 in which she clearly says her statements regarding Lumumba can't be relied upon as true, should have made the police realize they had the wrong man; Lumumba was not involved. But they still did not release him until Nov. 19.
Remember, Lumumba was arrested and presumably swabbed for DNA relatively early in the morning of Nov. 6. Samples from Knox and Sollecito would already be available. The samples would have been rushed to Rome, and Stefanoni's records show that the DNA quantification step was completed on Nov. 6. As I understand, it may not be clear from the data she made available to the defense exactly when the DNA profile test itself was run on these reference samples, but it would have been done after the quantification either on Nov. 6 or, at the latest, early on Nov. 7. The results would then have been communicated to Prosecutor Mignini and possibly the relevant police officers: No matches to the rape kit "unknown" (rape/murder suspect) DNA profile.

The reason it may take more than 24 hours for forensic DNA testing is because, in the situation you describe, the lab has a backlog of testing to clear and/or the tests do not involve simple cheek swabs.

Last edited by Numbers; 18th June 2019 at 12:32 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 12:38 PM   #213
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,012
Bill, don't believe your lyin' eyes or ears! That man didn't scale that wall and he didn't say anyone could have done it with no problem.

Quote:
Just remember, what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening. Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news.
Hmmmm...that Trump quote could just as easily be attributed to the PGP.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 12:50 PM   #214
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,012
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Remember, Lumumba was arrested and presumably swabbed for DNA relatively early in the morning of Nov. 6. Samples from Knox and Sollecito would already be available. The samples would have been rushed to Rome, and Stefanoni's records show that the DNA quantification step was completed on Nov. 6. As I understand, it may not be clear from the data she made available to the defense exactly when the DNA profile test itself was run on these reference samples, but it would have been done after the quantification either on Nov. 6 or, at the latest, early on Nov. 7. The results would then have been communicated to Prosecutor Mignini and possibly the relevant police officers: No matches to the rape kit "unknown" (rape/murder suspect) DNA profile.

The reason it may take more than 24 hours for forensic DNA testing is because, in the situation you describe, the lab has a backlog of testing to clear and/or the tests do not involve simple cheek swabs.
But I didn't describe any situation or backlogs for that timeline nor did the article:

Quote:
Most genetic tests take 24-72 hours but the time taken for DNA to go from crime scene to identification can span as long as 14 days.
https://newatlas.com/rapid-dna-testing/15950/
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 12:52 PM   #215
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,870
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I'm not one for conspiracy theories so I don't believe the results were rigged. But I do believe Stefanoni was essentially told to keep testing until they came up with something. I'm all but certain the egram for 36B is nothing more than lab contamination, and I suspect the suppressed results would have proven this. This also would confirm this was a deliberate effort to implicate Amanda and Raffaele.

I have no doubt that had the knife been tested by a neutral lab the results would have indicated a typical kitchen knife, used by Amanda to prepare food. It would not have been linked to the crime.

The prosecution was desperate to link Amanda to the crime and you can see that in the evidence they presented; the knife, Amanda's DNA in her own bathroom, Luminol positive prints proven not to be made with Meredith's blood, her infamous kiss and the 'tada', eating pizza. Everything is a massive stretch, that can only appear to be connected to the crime if you start out believing as much and go from there.
Of course, we should distinguish a "conspiracy theory" from an actual "conspiracy" which may be viewed by the participants as everyday professional "teamwork". For example, during Amanda's interrogation, did the "interpreter" Donnino need to be told that she should discuss her own temporary amnesia, and suggest that maybe Amanda was suffering from that, or did she offer this suggestion as a member in good standing of the police? Also, Donnino admitted in her testimony before the Boninsegna court that she realized during the interrogation that Amanda's phone message could be merely an English-speaker's attempt to write "see you later, good evening" as a good-bye greeting in Italian, but she did not offer that information to the other police during the interrogation.

So, no conspiracy, for those fearing they may be adopting a conspiracy theory, it's only excellent teamwork by the police and prosecutor.

Isn't rerunning a test in order apparently to get a result with contamination which may be considered incriminating, when the first test is exculpatory or inconclusive, and neither the first test nor the contamination are disclosed to the defense, "rigging" a test?

Last edited by Numbers; 18th June 2019 at 01:01 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 01:13 PM   #216
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,870
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
The way I see it is that Mignini and the cops made a decision on the discovery of break-in that the act had been staged, they therefore didn't treat Filomena's room as a bona-fide crime scene. We've all seen Ron Hendry's analysis and evaluated it for ourselves, and there's no reason whatsoever to conclude that the break-in was staged, it's so freaking obviously authentic. Why would Mignini come to such a bizarre conclusion if it wasn't to protect Rudy?

On that day the theory of the staged break-in gave birth to the factoid that someone was being protected, otherwise there is no use for the theory; however, in reality, there is only evidence of an actual break-in and no reason at all to conclude that anyone was being protected. For me this is a case of simple Freudian projection. Rudy had been useful to the cops, now he was a liability, he had to be foisted on to others with K&S being the most vulnerable candidates. If Mignini hadn't been so compromised he'd have went with an actual break-in and then waited for all the lab results to come in. There would have been no reason to railroad K&S.

Hoots
Mignini (who believes he is a real-life Sherlock Holmes) and the police wanted to solve the case quickly. While I can't prove that they didn't want to protect Guede, it's just as likely that they didn't want to chase all over Italy or Europe to find some random guy who had broken the window by throwing a rock at it and then climbed through the broken window (removing some of the glass to prevent injury).

Therefore, assume that the break-in was staged and therefore narrow the focus of the investigation to the persons at hand, primarily the residents of the cottage. Who has a weak alibi? That obviously naive American girl, Amanda; only her new Italian boyfriend can vouch for her location at the relevant time. So he must be a suspect in order to make her a suspect. Now, because those two don't seem that murderous, there needs to be a heavy, someone who Amanda can be coerced into naming. Case closed. No need to search for an unknown burglar/rapist/murderer.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 10:48 PM   #217
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,122
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
The very first pair of investigative blunders, made early afternoon, Nov 2, 2007. These were real boners:
1. Thinking the break-in had to have been staged because they couldn't imagine anyone climbing up to Filomena's window. They didn't even test their hypothesis. (Years' later an Italian TV program duplicated the climb.)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...324c05488e.jpg

2. Being unable to imagine the "condition" of the cottage that Knox had seen in that morning, that was enough to raise some sort of alarm (calls to roommates, to Seattle, to Raffaele's then-Carabinieri sister) but with nothing which said "murder", because the victim's door was locked.

Other than the postal police, every other investigator first saw an obvious murder scene. (Not even the postal police suspected murder, even refusing to bust down the door.)
The "investigative amnesia" started right from the beginning.

Then Mignini ordered body temperature NOT be taken, thus clouding investigation of time-of-death.

Then - video shows Stefanoni at the scene being suspicious of the presumed semen stain under the victim's hips; then somewhere down the line did not test it to either verify or ID the man who'd left it.

As an aside, the stupidest on-line comment was one from a nutter who blamed "the defence" for all these failures.
I would add given a murder had happened, allowing the occupant of the room where the broken window was, to enter and remove items before the forensic team had been in.

Secondly the assumption that because clothes are strewn around including on the floor of a young woman's room this means it was ransacked and that glass being on top of clothes on the floor was evidence thati the window was broken post ransacking. (Personally it looked like my bedroom on most days except just before my mother visits.)
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 10:58 PM   #218
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,122
It is interesting many people who are posting anti-Knox hate comments are clearly influenced by early lurid newspaper reports. They report things said in newspapers as if they were facts and are ignorant of the facts presented in the case. E.g.saying the body was moved and posed post mortem something the forensic experts never claimed.Or that forensic experts said more than one person was involved in the murder.

Uninformed sociopathic posters such as KrissyG and HarryRag are effective because they constantly post the same lies to bolster their irrational bullying obsession with this poor young woman.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 12:39 AM   #219
TomG
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Mignini (who believes he is a real-life Sherlock Holmes) and the police wanted to solve the case quickly. While I can't prove that they didn't want to protect Guede, it's just as likely that they didn't want to chase all over Italy or Europe to find some random guy who had broken the window by throwing a rock at it and then climbed through the broken window (removing some of the glass to prevent injury).

Therefore, assume that the break-in was staged and therefore narrow the focus of the investigation to the persons at hand, primarily the residents of the cottage. Who has a weak alibi? That obviously naive American girl, Amanda; only her new Italian boyfriend can vouch for her location at the relevant time. So he must be a suspect in order to make her a suspect. Now, because those two don't seem that murderous, there needs to be a heavy, someone who Amanda can be coerced into naming. Case closed. No need to search for an unknown burglar/rapist/murderer.
If you hypothesise that Mignini and the cops quite legitimately didn't know that Rudy was involved on Nov. 2nd, then you head into the interrogations of 5th-6th Nov with the same hypothesis, you then end up with a scenario that negates the argument that the calunnia was contrived by Mignini, since it implies that the cops didn't really know who the killer was, and were actually misled when Amanda implicated Lumumba. My argument has always been that Mignini and the cops knew that Rudy was involved by the night of the interrogations and they ushered in Lumumba on the strength of the text messages in order to protect Rudy. If you take the protection of Rudy out of the equation during the interrogation then the did she or didn't she argument becomes much more evenly contested.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 12:40 AM   #220
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,012
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
It is interesting many people who are posting anti-Knox hate comments are clearly influenced by early lurid newspaper reports. They report things said in newspapers as if they were facts and are ignorant of the facts presented in the case. E.g.saying the body was moved and posed post mortem something the forensic experts never claimed.Or that forensic experts said more than one person was involved in the murder.

Uninformed sociopathic posters such as KrissyG and HarryRag are effective because they constantly post the same lies to bolster their irrational bullying obsession with this poor young woman.
Quote:
The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.
Aus Churchills Lügenfabrik (English: "From Churchill's Lie Factory"), Joseph Goebbels
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 03:34 AM   #221
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 691
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
If you hypothesise that Mignini and the cops quite legitimately didn't know that Rudy was involved on Nov. 2nd, then you head into the interrogations of 5th-6th Nov with the same hypothesis, you then end up with a scenario that negates the argument that the calunnia was contrived by Mignini, since it implies that the cops didn't really know who the killer was, and were actually misled when Amanda implicated Lumumba. My argument has always been that Mignini and the cops knew that Rudy was involved by the night of the interrogations and they ushered in Lumumba on the strength of the text messages in order to protect Rudy. If you take the protection of Rudy out of the equation during the interrogation then the did she or didn't she argument becomes much more evenly contested.

Hoots
If you read Monster of Perugia the Rudy was being protected theory was presented in this book. The theory was Rudy was allowed to get away with crimes as he was working as an informer which explains why no action was taken over the burglary in Milan. If Rudy had been arrested for the Milan incident he would not have been free to kill Meredith. When Meredith's body was discovered, Mignini may have known straight away Rudy had killed and were responsible for a killer being free. Amanda, Raffaele and Lumumba were arrested to take the blame for Guede. It is ironic Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda covering for Guede when the evidence suggests it was Mignini covering for Guede. When the evidence came back showing Guede as the killer, Mignini had no choice but to arrest Guede.However, if Amanda and Raffaele were prosecuted Guede's role in Meredith's murder could be minimized. This theory explains a lot of things; why were Amanda and Raffaele not released when the evidence showed Guede as the killer, why were Amanda and Raffaele so viciously railroaded, why Mignini has minimized Guede's role in Meredith's murder and Guede has been treated so leniently. Mignini had no objection to the reduction in Guede's sentence. The TJMK and PMF sites go to great lengths to defend the police/prosecution which makes me suspect these sites are connected to the police/prosecution which explains why these sites defend Guede and minimize his role in Meredith's murder.
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 06:20 AM   #222
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,870
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
If you hypothesise that Mignini and the cops quite legitimately didn't know that Rudy was involved on Nov. 2nd, then you head into the interrogations of 5th-6th Nov with the same hypothesis, you then end up with a scenario that negates the argument that the calunnia was contrived by Mignini, since it implies that the cops didn't really know who the killer was, and were actually misled when Amanda implicated Lumumba. My argument has always been that Mignini and the cops knew that Rudy was involved by the night of the interrogations and they ushered in Lumumba on the strength of the text messages in order to protect Rudy. If you take the protection of Rudy out of the equation during the interrogation then the did she or didn't she argument becomes much more evenly contested.

Hoots
The police were coercing Amanda to name someone whom she "knew" (in their opinion) had committed the rape/murder. Maybe they wanted or expected to coerce her to name Raffaele, or maybe they didn't care as long as it was a male. They may have had Lumumba picked out before the interrogation since they knew she worked with him and she had met him, If I recall correctly, for a few minutes (after her class, not at the pub) on Nov. 4 or 5. They did intentionally misrepresent what the text message meant, based on Donnino's testimony to the Boninsegna court. I don't see these events as compelling one to conclude that all this was done by the police to protect Guede. Nor does it compel one to conclude that the police were not protecting Guede. This same kind of missing the (real and sometimes obvious) suspect in pursuit of a police or prosecution theory that one or more (actually innocent) persons had committed the crime is an element in a number of wrongful convictions and exonerations in the US.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 06:33 AM   #223
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,096
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
The TJMK and PMF sites go to great lengths to defend the police/prosecution which makes me suspect these sites are connected to the police/prosecution which explains why these sites defend Guede and minimize his role in Meredith's murder.
I disagree. Completely.

Those sites swallowed whole the tabloid coverage, which pretty much ran unopposed until the defence were finally able to present their case at the end of the 2009 trial. Up until then, Mignini's views held away. Those sites' main problem was accepting all of that uncritically.

My view is that Andrea Vogt had been the main, often same day source for Peggy Ganong's site. Vogt wrote mainstream articles for the Seattle press claiming that it had been the Seattle-based haters who were being harrassed!!! It was quite the partnership.

Swallowing whole what the prosecution wildly claimed, is a different phenomenon than being directly manipulated by them.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 06:47 AM   #224
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,870
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
If you hypothesise that Mignini and the cops quite legitimately didn't know that Rudy was involved on Nov. 2nd, then you head into the interrogations of 5th-6th Nov with the same hypothesis, you then end up with a scenario that negates the argument that the calunnia was contrived by Mignini, since it implies that the cops didn't really know who the killer was, and were actually misled when Amanda implicated Lumumba. My argument has always been that Mignini and the cops knew that Rudy was involved by the night of the interrogations and they ushered in Lumumba on the strength of the text messages in order to protect Rudy. If you take the protection of Rudy out of the equation during the interrogation then the did she or didn't she argument becomes much more evenly contested.

Hoots

Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The police were coercing Amanda to name someone whom she "knew" (in their opinion) had committed the rape/murder. Maybe they wanted or expected to coerce her to name Raffaele, or maybe they didn't care as long as it was a male. They may have had Lumumba picked out before the interrogation since they knew she worked with him and she had met him, If I recall correctly, for a few minutes (after her class, not at the pub) on Nov. 4 or 5. They did intentionally misrepresent what the text message meant, based on Donnino's testimony to the Boninsegna court. I don't see these events as compelling one to conclude that all this was done by the police to protect Guede. Nor does it compel one to conclude that the police were not protecting Guede. This same kind of missing the (real and sometimes obvious) suspect in pursuit of a police or prosecution theory that one or more (actually innocent) persons had committed the crime is an element in a number of wrongful convictions and exonerations in the US.

Examples from the US include the Central Park 5, Martin Tankleff, Jeffrey Deskovic, and many more. See, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

The police/prosecution behavior in these situations is sometimes called "confirmation bias" although in more behavioral terms it might be called "cheating by authorities motivated by the perceived need to seek a result ("case closed") quickly and with minimal effort". The police and prosecution may not perceive that coercing confessions, for example by conducting long interrogations with threats and lies, especially for young or vulnerable persons, with no defense lawyer present, is a form of cheating.

Last edited by Numbers; 19th June 2019 at 06:49 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 06:48 AM   #225
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,096
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
I would add given a murder had happened, allowing the occupant of the room where the broken window was, to enter and remove items before the forensic team had been in.
That one points to a complete breakdown in the chain of command in the securing of the crime-scene.

But regardless, things like that pretty well negate the value of any of the forensics in the cottage. It's bad enough that perhaps 3/4 of a dozen people had access to the upstairs before they knew it was a murder crime scene.....

..... but there was also Filomena being allowed unescorted access after it was known.

Add to this, that postal police Battistelli more than likely DID go into the murder room without forensics countermeasures, to check to see if the victim had actually expired. Add further that Napoleoni testified that the 4-person medical team also had been allowed into the murder room without countermeasures.

Add to this that the cornerstone of convicting Sollecito had been the bra clasp on that floor, collected 46 days later (!), and it was hardly an uncontaminated crime scene. Add to all that the manner in which Stefanoni's team collected the clasp 46 days later!



Aside from all that, I'm sure all was as per forensics protocols.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 07:45 AM   #226
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,204
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
If you read Monster of Perugia the Rudy was being protected theory was presented in this book. The theory was Rudy was allowed to get away with crimes as he was working as an informer which explains why no action was taken over the burglary in Milan. If Rudy had been arrested for the Milan incident he would not have been free to kill Meredith. When Meredith's body was discovered, Mignini may have known straight away Rudy had killed and were responsible for a killer being free. Amanda, Raffaele and Lumumba were arrested to take the blame for Guede. It is ironic Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda covering for Guede when the evidence suggests it was Mignini covering for Guede. When the evidence came back showing Guede as the killer, Mignini had no choice but to arrest Guede.However, if Amanda and Raffaele were prosecuted Guede's role in Meredith's murder could be minimized. This theory explains a lot of things; why were Amanda and Raffaele not released when the evidence showed Guede as the killer, why were Amanda and Raffaele so viciously railroaded, why Mignini has minimized Guede's role in Meredith's murder and Guede has been treated so leniently. Mignini had no objection to the reduction in Guede's sentence. The TJMK and PMF sites go to great lengths to defend the police/prosecution which makes me suspect these sites are connected to the police/prosecution which explains why these sites defend Guede and minimize his role in Meredith's murder.
I was with you right up to the highlighted. I doubt these sites have any specific connection to anything. They merely represent a collection of people duped by early reports and who developed an obsessive hatred of Amanda. I've often said this has long since NOT been about Meredith or seeing justice for her. If it was, there would have been outrage over the leniency afforded Guede. After all, not even the prosecution ever claimed Guede didn't have a hand in Meredith's murder. You can hate more than one person for having committed a crime.

I'm also not convinced Guede was a protected 'informant'. Guede had no specific ties to anything of importance - at least none that have ever been disclosed. What possible information could Guede have been providing the police?

This is all just speculation and conjecture, but I still believe the most likely scenario is incompetence and the rush to solve the crime quickly. It was a botched investigation that led them to believe Amanda was involved. They jumped the gun, made a spectacle of themselves and then went about covering their own asses after they realized Guede committed the crime.

I've mentioned the case of Julie Rae Harper a few times when discussing this case. Julie was convicted of murdering her son but was later acquitted. It's a classic case of an inept investigation and of a prosecutor who got a theory in his head and refused to change his mind as evidence evolved. I found the following comments from one of the jurors who acquitted her especially interesting as it parallels this case to a t!

Quote:
A juror contacted after the trial, speaking on the condition that his name not be used, said that the state police “failed miserably.”

The problem could be traced back to the broken glass that lay sparkling on the concrete outside Harper’s back door the night Joel was killed. Anybody could see that the door had to have been wide open when the shards fell. What kind of “intruder” breaks a door that’s already open?

Ken Moses, a retired San Francisco cop who spent 28 years as a crime-scene investigator and has worked 17,000 crime scenes, was hired by the defense to tell the jury how that happened. “It’s a common occurrence in home-invasion crimes where intruder is discovered and makes a hasty exit,” he said. “Once the door violently opens and stops at the apex . . . the glass falls out.”

But the officers who reported to Harper’s Lawrenceville home just saw glass broken out where, they assumed, it should be broken in.

“[The first deputy] saw the glass broken out on the floor in the garage and outside the second door and thought, ‘This is phony,’” Urdangen says, “and that just informed all of their thinking. That’s why their work was so flawed.”

Parkinson disagrees, even though his explanation confirms Urdangen’s theory.

“I don’t think the police did an inadequate job,” the prosecutor says. “I think they went to the crime scene and saw that this didn’t look like an intruder had been in like Julie said and thereafter they tried to get her to explain it.”

The juror, though, said he never heard Parkinson offer any story to counter Harper’s. “I’m open-minded to the end,” the juror says. “To the closing statement, I was waiting for [Parkinson] to say how these events all took place.”

Defense attorney Daniel says she knows why Parkinson offered no story.

“There was no account that they could put together of how Julie could have killed her son, because any account that you could come up with was contradicted by some piece of physical evidence,” Daniel says. “Maybe that’s a good place to stop and reexamine.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 07:59 AM   #227
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,870
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I was with you right up to the highlighted. I doubt these sites have any specific connection to anything. They merely represent a collection of people duped by early reports and who developed an obsessive hatred of Amanda. I've often said this has long since NOT been about Meredith or seeing justice for her. If it was, there would have been outrage over the leniency afforded Guede. After all, not even the prosecution ever claimed Guede didn't have a hand in Meredith's murder. You can hate more than one person for having committed a crime.

I'm also not convinced Guede was a protected 'informant'. Guede had no specific ties to anything of importance - at least none that have ever been disclosed. What possible information could Guede have been providing the police?

This is all just speculation and conjecture, but I still believe the most likely scenario is incompetence and the rush to solve the crime quickly. It was a botched investigation that led them to believe Amanda was involved. They jumped the gun, made a spectacle of themselves and then went about covering their own asses after they realized Guede committed the crime.

I've mentioned the case of Julie Rae Harper a few times when discussing this case. Julie was convicted of murdering her son but was later acquitted. It's a classic case of an inept investigation and of a prosecutor who got a theory in his head and refused to change his mind as evidence evolved. I found the following comments from one of the jurors who acquitted her especially interesting as it parallels this case to a t!
I believe this is a big part of the truth. But what it leaves out is that the "rush" to solve the crime quickly, in this Knox-Sollecito-Lumumba case involved violating Italian procedural and criminal laws by the police and prosecutor.

As proof of the violation of Italian criminal laws, Mignini and another prosecutor charged Amanda with calunnia against the police and Mignini for her statements in court, and in her appeal documents, for reciting her account of what had occurred during the interrogation. The Boninsegna court motivation report lists the specific crimes that the authorities believe Amanda was implicitly charging against the police and Mignini.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 08:31 AM   #228
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,204
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I believe this is a big part of the truth. But what it leaves out is that the "rush" to solve the crime quickly, in this Knox-Sollecito-Lumumba case involved violating Italian procedural and criminal laws by the police and prosecutor.

As proof of the violation of Italian criminal laws, Mignini and another prosecutor charged Amanda with calunnia against the police and Mignini for her statements in court, and in her appeal documents, for reciting her account of what had occurred during the interrogation. The Boninsegna court motivation report lists the specific crimes that the authorities believe Amanda was implicitly charging against the police and Mignini.
Likewise, in the Julie Rae Harper case there was documented criminal misconduct. Here's one example;
Quote:

UIS discovers evidence of police perjury: The media coverage from the Prisoner Review Board hearing prompted the former mayor of Lawrenceville and the former chief of police to contact the Downstate Innocence Project with evidence suggesting that a Lawrence County Sheriff deputy testified falsely at Julie’s first trial, providing false evidence which contributed to her conviction. The Deputy, who was first on the scene, made no report about searching the back yard for footprints on an intruder. However, at trial, Deputy Dennis York testified that before entering the house he shined his flash light down on the wet dew-covered grass and could find no evidence of a perpetrator’s footprints in the back yard where Julie described the intruder striking her to the ground and calmly walking away. York testified, “I shined the yard with my light. It was heavy dew. I seen no fresh track in the yard.” However, this testimony is contradicted by a neighbor who walked the same area in his barefeet and said the grass was dry. After Julie was convicted, her new husband Mark Harper contacted a meteorologist who reviewed weather records for that morning. This expert concluded there would have been no dew on the ground that morning. Key evidence was discovered by UIS that was never provided to Julie’s defense attorney by prosecutors. This withheld evidence was an audio-taped interview of Deputy York that was conducted on the morning of the crime by the Lawrenceville police chief David White. The audio interview contradicted York’s trial testimony by stating he went immediately inside the house and never mentioned searching the back yard for footprints in the dew. This audio tape was never provided to the defense during Julie’s first trial. Yet, his testimony was used by prosecutors as evidence that there was no intruder.
ETA (updated) Again, the case closely parallels the Kercher case... what happened to Amanda happened to Julie. Prosecutor Parkinson parallels Mignini. In both cases the police immediately concluded there was a staged break-in and this resulted in them immediately looking at someone living inside the home.

Last edited by TruthCalls; 19th June 2019 at 08:41 AM.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 09:35 AM   #229
TomG
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Because they immediately made incorrect assumptions and judgments. Follain wrote:
He looked into Filomena’s room and like Napoleoni before him, he noticed the shards of glass on top of the piles of clothes and the large stone on the floor; it was obvious to him too that it could never have come through the window without shattering the shutters. He thought immediately that the window must have been broken by someone standing inside the room. ‘There’s a traitor in this house, someone who participated in the crime or helped to cover it up or who did both,’ Mignini thought to himself. Perhaps the killer had entered through the front door, and staged a fake burglary to throw suspicion on an outsider, assisted by someone living in the cottage – in either of the two flats – who at the very least, acted as an accomplice to the murder
To me this is just complete baloney. I mean "traitor" WTF is he on about? The shutters were made of wood both the internal and external ones they're not going to just shatter. The glass sprayed inwards for about 9 feet into an 11 foot long room, you're not going to get that with a rock thrown in the other direction. There was impacted glass in the outward facing inner shutter and glass was removed for ease of entry. There is no photographs that I've seen that show glass on top of clothing. I think this is the time when Mignini knew it was Rudy, now he had to "cover it up" by transferring his or the cops protection for Rudy onto Amanda. Sorry! I think it's freaking obvious. "Traitor" indeed, what rubbish!

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 10:16 AM   #230
TomG
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I disagree. Completely.

Those sites swallowed whole the tabloid coverage, which pretty much ran unopposed until the defence were finally able to present their case at the end of the 2009 trial. Up until then, Mignini's views held away. Those sites' main problem was accepting all of that uncritically.

My view is that Andrea Vogt had been the main, often same day source for Peggy Ganong's site. Vogt wrote mainstream articles for the Seattle press claiming that it had been the Seattle-based haters who were being harrassed!!! It was quite the partnership.

Swallowing whole what the prosecution wildly claimed, is a different phenomenon than being directly manipulated by them.
I'm not so sure. On the odd occasion when I've visited TJMK I've sometimes seen articles where PQ is extolling the virtues of all things Italian. Things that have nothing at all to do with the case. I think he has an agenda other than the death of Meredith.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 10:59 AM   #231
TomG
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The police were coercing Amanda to name someone whom she "knew" (in their opinion) had committed the rape/murder. Maybe they wanted or expected to coerce her to name Raffaele, or maybe they didn't care as long as it was a male. They may have had Lumumba picked out before the interrogation since they knew she worked with him and she had met him, If I recall correctly, for a few minutes (after her class, not at the pub) on Nov. 4 or 5. They did intentionally misrepresent what the text message meant, based on Donnino's testimony to the Boninsegna court. I don't see these events as compelling one to conclude that all this was done by the police to protect Guede. Nor does it compel one to conclude that the police were not protecting Guede. This same kind of missing the (real and sometimes obvious) suspect in pursuit of a police or prosecution theory that one or more (actually innocent) persons had committed the crime is an element in a number of wrongful convictions and exonerations in the US.
I think that there is ample evidence, as I've already posted that Rudy was being protected before the murder as well as after it. If there was no protection why not try all 3 together? Instead, Rudy was granted a fast-track trial when he should have been tried with K&S allowing their defence lawyers to cross-examine him. It was also concluded in Micheli that he didn't strike the fatal blow. A conclusion that is utterly impossible to arrive at from the evidence at the time. Even more so with M/B's conclusion that there was no evidence of anyone in Meredith's room at the time of the murder other than Rudy. There's no doubt in my mind that Rudy was being protected at the expense of K&S.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 11:00 AM   #232
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,012
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I disagree. Completely.

Those sites swallowed whole the tabloid coverage, which pretty much ran unopposed until the defence were finally able to present their case at the end of the 2009 trial. Up until then, Mignini's views held away. Those sites' main problem was accepting all of that uncritically.

My view is that Andrea Vogt had been the main, often same day source for Peggy Ganong's site. Vogt wrote mainstream articles for the Seattle press claiming that it had been the Seattle-based haters who were being harrassed!!! It was quite the partnership.

Swallowing whole what the prosecution wildly claimed, is a different phenomenon than being directly manipulated by them.
Agreed. I don't think the two sites were directly connected to the police/prosecution but I do think they were looked upon favorably by them and may have provided info through a third party, perhaps Vogt or even Nadeau.

Neither TJMK nor PMF ever attempted to look at evidence from a fair and/or open-mind perspective. Everything for them had to be interpreted through heavily guilt colored glasses. As time passed, the sites became even more ridiculous and hateful. Today, TJMK is the last refuge of a small handful of extremists who feed off each other in their echo chamber. I'd feel rather sorry for them if they weren't just so hateful.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 11:24 AM   #233
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,096
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Neither TJMK nor PMF ever attempted to look at evidence from a fair and/or open-mind perspective. Everything for them had to be interpreted through heavily guilt colored glasses. As time passed, the sites became even more ridiculous and hateful. Today, TJMK is the last refuge of a small handful of extremists who feed off each other in their echo chamber. I'd feel rather sorry for them if they weren't just so hateful.
I'm wracking my brain to remember what Peggy Ganong, chief moderator of .ORG had said about why she banned pro-innocence posters to her site.

I probably am not terribly accurate (so buyer beware), but it was something like, "because they take away from what is important, and get us to lose focus."

Otherwise their expressed focus was to honour the victim, but never otherwise explained why the vitriol mainly against Knox, but often against people like Bruce Fischer, Candace Dempsey or Frank Sfarzo was so strident.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 11:24 AM   #234
TomG
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The GC Panel will, according to the Convention and ECHR Court Rules, review whether there is an "exceptional" basis, primarily relative to the development of ECHR case-law (which may include one or more issues, any one of which may not be "exceptional" itself), for any of the cases, including Knox v. Italy, to be referred to the Grand Chamber. Historically, about 5% of cases requested are accepted for referral.
Do you know, I've got an inkling that the appeal will be referred. The reason is that this is a massive case that's had the public and the media spellbound for the last decade and more. They may arrive at the same conclusion again but I think this case is just too significant to be concluded in one judgement, even for the ECtHR. Tell me I'm wrong!

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 11:43 AM   #235
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,204
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I'm wracking my brain to remember what Peggy Ganong, chief moderator of .ORG had said about why she banned pro-innocence posters to her site.

I probably am not terribly accurate (so buyer beware), but it was something like, "because they take away from what is important, and get us to lose focus."

Otherwise their expressed focus was to honour the victim, but never otherwise explained why the vitriol mainly against Knox, but often against people like Bruce Fischer, Candace Dempsey or Frank Sfarzo was so strident.
I remember Michael at dot net once said exactly that when explaining/justifying "FOAKer Tuesday". I don't recall Peggy making any such declaration, but I can tell you I got banned after just seven posts. All posts were on topic and not directed at anyone, but I'm sure I came across as leaning PIP. The impression I got was they didn't want anyone who doubted the guilt of Amanda, or who might ask questions or point things out that put their various guilt theories in doubt.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 12:26 PM   #236
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,012
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I remember Michael at dot net once said exactly that when explaining/justifying "FOAKer Tuesday". I don't recall Peggy making any such declaration, but I can tell you I got banned after just seven posts. All posts were on topic and not directed at anyone, but I'm sure I came across as leaning PIP. The impression I got was they didn't want anyone who doubted the guilt of Amanda, or who might ask questions or point things out that put their various guilt theories in doubt.
Extremist echo chambers tend to be that way. Go figure.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 12:46 PM   #237
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,870
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
I think that there is ample evidence, as I've already posted that Rudy was being protected before the murder as well as after it. If there was no protection why not try all 3 together? Instead, Rudy was granted a fast-track trial when he should have been tried with K&S allowing their defence lawyers to cross-examine him. It was also concluded in Micheli that he didn't strike the fatal blow. A conclusion that is utterly impossible to arrive at from the evidence at the time. Even more so with M/B's conclusion that there was no evidence of anyone in Meredith's room at the time of the murder other than Rudy. There's no doubt in my mind that Rudy was being protected at the expense of K&S.

Hoots
I absolutely agree that Rudy Guede was protected and coddled by the police and prosecutor Mignini after Guede was returned to Italy arrested.

Every measure you describe that protected or coddled Guede was meant to set him up as a potential witness against Amanda and Raffaele or to set up the results of his trial to be used against Amanda and Raffaele. The fast-track trial not only resulted in Guede getting a reduced sentence, it allowed for the conclusion of the proceedings against him to be concluded in time to be used, although improperly and illegally according to Italian law and Constitution as stated in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, against Amanda and Raffaele in the proceedings against them.

Last edited by Numbers; 19th June 2019 at 12:47 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 02:38 PM   #238
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,012
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I absolutely agree that Rudy Guede was protected and coddled by the police and prosecutor Mignini after Guede was returned to Italy arrested.

Every measure you describe that protected or coddled Guede was meant to set him up as a potential witness against Amanda and Raffaele or to set up the results of his trial to be used against Amanda and Raffaele. The fast-track trial not only resulted in Guede getting a reduced sentence, it allowed for the conclusion of the proceedings against him to be concluded in time to be used, although improperly and illegally according to Italian law and Constitution as stated in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, against Amanda and Raffaele in the proceedings against them.
I agree with the highlighted part. However, Guede was legally entitled to take the fast track option and, if I'd been his lawyer, I'd have pushed for him to take it. The evidence against him was overwhelming and if he'd gone for a full trial, he'd have been given a harsh sentence without the benefits the fast track provided. He'd have ended up serving a longer sentence. I can fault Guede and Maresca for a lot of things, but taking taking the fast track is not one of them.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 03:28 PM   #239
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,870
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I agree with the highlighted part. However, Guede was legally entitled to take the fast track option and, if I'd been his lawyer, I'd have pushed for him to take it. The evidence against him was overwhelming and if he'd gone for a full trial, he'd have been given a harsh sentence without the benefits the fast track provided. He'd have ended up serving a longer sentence. I can fault Guede and Maresca for a lot of things, but taking taking the fast track is not one of them.
True. But one consequence of the proceedings against Guede was that he was given additional time off his sentence because he was, according to the prosecution and as agreed by the courts, not the leader of the attack against Meredith. According to the judgment against Guede, another person led that attack, and was named as Amanda Knox. Raffaele Sollecito was also named as a participant in the proceedings against Guede. Yet neither Amanda Knox nor Raffaele Sollecito was on trial in the proceedings against Guede and thus could not have a defense during that trial. That was a legal trick, exploiting the dysfunctional Italian judicial system, to attempt to get a judgment against Guede that could then be used against Amanda and Raffaele in the proceedings against them.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 03:30 PM   #240
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,012
Speaking of TJMK, I just had a look. Quennell has another fallacy riddled 'article'. The nausea began rising after reading this at the beginning:

Quote:
Reports we are getting suggest that Knox herself has turned more millions against her.

Not surprising. We need to understand (as Knox “forgets”) how almost all informed Italians back in trial and appeal days developed their knowledge of the case and their takes on Knox.

It was not from a demonizing media (there actually was none, as we’ll explain in another post) or self-serving police and prosecutors (there were also none as we’ll explain).

It was in fact from LIVE TV and COURT DOCUMENTS ONLINE.
Quennell's getting "reports" that "more millions" have "turned against" Knox? Looks like Vixen isn't the only one with secret "insiders". It must have also been an 'insider' that informed Quennell that Knox was "a known junkie" since her hair tests showed no narcotics. I guess there was another test that revealed drugs in her hair that only the 'insider' knew about and that, for some reason, was suppressed. Unsurprisingly, there are only 4 comments for that latest piece of nonsense: one from KrissyG and 3 from Slick Pete himself. It must be getting awfully lonely in that echo chamber.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:38 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.