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 Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old 23rd May 2020, 07:35 AM   #1841
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,656
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
Vixen’s post proves perfectly the points I made in my previous posts :-
On YouTube I spotted the Lifetime movie about the case, the one starring Hayden Panettiere and Marcia Gay Harden. I'd never seen it.

Despite all the courts, even the convicting ones, saying that Raffaele had called 112 before the arrival of the postal police, the film depicted him sneaking off after their arrival to call. I started fast forwarding from there.

One of the places I landed was the film claiming that Knox's blood was found on the bathroom faucet, mixed in with the victim's blood. I continued to skip forward.

Some of the scenes made it quite evident that both AK and RS were innocent. But I guess they had to include those other factoids suggesting guilt for balance - even if they'd not been true.

That's the way this case has rolled.
__________________
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 23rd May 2020, 12:25 PM   #1842
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 13,756
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
On YouTube I spotted the Lifetime movie about the case, the one starring Hayden Panettiere and Marcia Gay Harden. I'd never seen it.

Despite all the courts, even the convicting ones, saying that Raffaele had called 112 before the arrival of the postal police, the film depicted him sneaking off after their arrival to call. I started fast forwarding from there.

One of the places I landed was the film claiming that Knox's blood was found on the bathroom faucet, mixed in with the victim's blood. I continued to skip forward.

Some of the scenes made it quite evident that both AK and RS were innocent. But I guess they had to include those other factoids suggesting guilt for balance - even if they'd not been true.

That's the way this case has rolled.
I've never watched it either, but I've read about it. One scene was of the two of them giggling at the vigil for Meredith...the one that neither of them attended. Neither did Laura, Filomena nor any of Meredith's friends, but you never hear that when the PGP were busily slamming Knox for not attending.
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 23rd May 2020, 07:15 PM   #1843
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 13,756
I see our resident PGP has, once again, failed to support any of her allegations. Instead, when presented with evidence that contradicts them, she does a Houdini act. This is starting to become a habit.
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 24th May 2020, 05:17 AM   #1844
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 4,134
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Oh yes, true. I should have written "they can ask their home government for their immunity to be waived". For example, British diplomats overseas are told that for most minor cases they should ask for their immunity to be rescinded so that they can be held properly accountable. The home state can still refuse to waive immunity of course, but I'd think that's rare.

And as potentially distasteful as it may seem, I'd suggest that almost every nation on Earth, when faced with one of their diplomats (or their spouses/dependents) being investigated for a serious criminal act, would advise that individual a) to claim diplomatic immunity, and b) to repatriate to the home country ASAP. Most right-thinking countries would find some way to censure the person concerned once they returned to the home country: I doubt that Sacoolas' husband's career prospects look all that spectacular at the moment, for example.

But unfortunately at its heart it's an evasion of justice. However, on the flip side, there are sensible and sound reasons why people carrying on diplomatic business in another country (and their in-country spouses/dependents) should carry immunity in this way.

Nothing to do with Amanda Knox, of course - but it's interesting nonetheless to draw the comparison and explain exactly why the two instances are so very different.
The worst case was the husband of a CIA officer based at the London embassy, who had diplomatic immunity as a spouse. The husband committed a serious sexual assault against an under aged person; despite requests to lift diplomatic immunity the US refused to do so.

The US does request that diplomatic immunity is lifted when diplomats commit offences in the US however.
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 24th May 2020, 05:26 AM   #1845
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 275
False confessions

Has anyone read this on false confessions?

http://jaapl.org/content/37/3/332

The most interesting section is the one on "persuaded false confessions" which IMO was the template used in Amanda's case. It's worth a read.

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 24th May 2020, 12:21 PM   #1846
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 13,756
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
The worst case was the husband of a CIA officer based at the London embassy, who had diplomatic immunity as a spouse. The husband committed a serious sexual assault against an under aged person; despite requests to lift diplomatic immunity the US refused to do so.

The US does request that diplomatic immunity is lifted when diplomats commit offences in the US however.
Unfortunately, those protected by DI get away with crimes all the time in every country. It happens in the US, too. For example, a son of a Ghana diplomat got away with at least 15 rapes but was only deported back to Ghana. The son of the Brazilian ambassador got away with one assault and later an attempted murder. Again, he could only be deported.

Any country can request DI be waived but that doesn't mean it will be granted. I highly suspect the UK has also refused to waive DI at some time. It is, and always has been AIUI, the policy of the US not to waive DI except in rare cases.
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 24th May 2020, 12:29 PM   #1847
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,656
Mignini in retirement - the Narducci case

Giuliano Mignini, in retirement, just won't stop embarrassing himself. He's now speaking and writing to the media about the Narducci case, yet again bangin his drum about the "double body switch" theory.

http://www.perugiatoday.it/attualita...ihiV2IuY74moyM

Read carefully, and with a good English-Italian translation. Mignini is banging his drum about judicial facts being deemed fact-facts, despite what the evidence showed.

It's amazing. He should buy a set of golf clubs, instead of reopening old issues that died long ago, and in their death concealed his embarrassments.
__________________
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 24th May 2020, 12:33 PM   #1848
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 13,756
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Has anyone read this on false confessions?

http://jaapl.org/content/37/3/332

The most interesting section is the one on "persuaded false confessions" which IMO was the template used in Amanda's case. It's worth a read.

Hoots
Yes, I read that quite some time ago and I agree that "persuaded false confession" was the strategy used on Amanda. What both Amanda and Anna Donnino describe as the events of Nov. 5-6, is like a playbook. You can follow step by step the tactics used, including the 'you have amnesia' ploy.

When this was brought up previously, the PGP response was that Amanda knew how to 'play the game' basically. They really proposed that a 20 yr. old girl who had never been interrogated before, somehow knew how to describe her interrogation to match the steps of a persuaded false confession.
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 24th May 2020, 01:10 PM   #1849
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 13,756
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Giuliano Mignini, in retirement, just won't stop embarrassing himself. He's now speaking and writing to the media about the Narducci case, yet again bangin his drum about the "double body switch" theory.

http://www.perugiatoday.it/attualita...ihiV2IuY74moyM

Read carefully, and with a good English-Italian translation. Mignini is banging his drum about judicial facts being deemed fact-facts, despite what the evidence showed.

It's amazing. He should buy a set of golf clubs, instead of reopening old issues that died long ago, and in their death concealed his embarrassments.
That entire 'double body switch' theory of Mignini's is just nuts.
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 24th May 2020, 02:32 PM   #1850
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,656
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
That entire 'double body switch' theory of Mignini's is just nuts.
The only thing more nuts that his theories were those who defended him.

Just say, "Satanic rite theory" and guilter-nutters to do with the Kercher murder were quick to quibble. It was, they claimed in a bid to rebut that, a rite associated with the Day of the Dead. (Even though Amanda Knox comes from a country and culture which has little idea of the practice.) (Even though guilter-friendly journalist Barbie Nadeau wrote that co-prosecutor Manuela Comodi threatened to quit the case if Mignini had gone to trial with it.)

On this forum, they'd write paragraphs and paragraphs trying to deflect the most obvious criticisms..... the guy, Mignini, is nuts when it comes to the theories he advanced in criminal cases.
__________________
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 24th May 2020, 03:27 PM   #1851
schmidt61
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Canada
Posts: 50
Rudy Guede skype conversion

November 19, 2007
RG:
She told me this. And after that I went to the bathroom. I really had to go take a s***. And I heard the doorbell. For me, that must have been one of the girls who lived with her. So, I was calmly in the bathroom, like that. And at a certain point...
GB:So you thought it was someone from upstairs?
RG: Yes, no, I thought that, well clearly someone rang the doorbell, they rang and she went and opened it.
RG:
I was in the bathroom, so for me, well, I didn't worry about it, because anyway in the end we were going to be seeing each other and... I was in the bathroom, in the bathroom maybe five minutes. So, I really had to take this s***, but then I heard a scream, but let me tell you, a really loud scream, so loud that according to me, if anyone was passing by, nearby, they would have heard this scream, because she screamed so loud...and then, then, I got a bit worried and I got out of the bathroom right away, without even putting my pants back on, they were practically falling down, I was wearing just my underwear and my pants were falling around my...
RG:
Around nine, nine twenty or so, because in the meantime we had gotten to talking and all.
GB:
I see.
RG:
I think nine‐twenty, nine‐thirty, around then, and then, when I heard the scream, let me tell you she screamed so loud that you could hear it even in the street, Giacomo, she screamed really loud. When I came out, it was in semi‐darkness, I came out and I saw him
RG:
so for me it was...it could have been anyone for me, see?
GB:
Sure, sure.
RG:
It could have been Amanda, it could have been... anyone.
GB:
So you were calmly taking a s***, I get it.
RG:
Well, firstly this person wasn't bigger than me, I mean taller, physically, in height, he wasn't taller than me. His back was turned, and I saw there...Meredith...I saw Meredith who was bleeding already, she had a slash in her throat, and this guy took a knife and I've got wounds on my hands because I grabbed his hand, he tried to stab me and I still have the wounds on my hands, the signs, that are healing now, but I still have them on my hand...
RG:
I tried to help her, Giacomo, it's not that...my blood, no, I don't know if there is any or not, because I didn't bleed, I didn't actually bleed, my wounds that I had, the guy just wounded me lightly, it didn't bleed, now I can't tell you... GB
RG:
I tried to help her, and if my prints are in the house, it's obvious because I touched everything, Giacomo.

RG:
And since my pants were falling down, because I hurried out of the bathroom, I hurried out of the bathroom, I fell on the ground, and then the guy ran away, he escaped, he went out the door, see? And then I got up, and I tried to help, to staunch the wounds, I took a towel in the bathroom, I tried to...to...

GB:Staunch the wound?
RG:...to put it into the wound, see, I was trying, and she was clinging to me hard, very hard. So first of all, I know...it's not that I ran away, but I was scared, I don't know why I didn't call the ambulance, it's because...I was alone there right then, alone, and I was completely covered [zuppo] in blood, and I was scared that they would blame only me.

Mod InfoThis and following 5 posts moved from moribund thread to the active one on the Meredith Kercher murder.
Posted By:zooterkin

Last edited by zooterkin; 25th May 2020 at 04:07 AM.
schmidt61 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 24th May 2020, 03:51 PM   #1852
schmidt61
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Canada
Posts: 50
Rudy claims the scream was loud enough to be heard on the street at around 9:00 or 9:20. if Meredith knew Rudy was in the cottage sitting on the toilet wouldn't the scream only have to be loud enough to alert him?

How long does it take him to get off the toilet getting down to Meredith door? A minute or less? He sees a man standing in front of Meredith room. He claims to see Meredith throat slashed bleeding on the floor? Isn't the area between Meredith door and the bathroom door small too small for two guys to be standing together?

The big question is how long does the attack ending with Meredith's throat to being cut take? Ten to fifteen minutes? Where the scream fit into the that time of ten to fifteen minutes? Would the attacker be in the hallway that quickly?
It also interesting that Rudy does think ONE PERSON could kill Meredith.


I think that ONE PERSON IS RUDY, not his imaginary attacker. Since no claims to hear a scream at that time. Since Nara Capezzali is sleeping. I also don't think Meredith let anyone into the cottage that night. Since Rudy doesn't mention Amanda being there for four months in his deposition March 26, 2008.

Last edited by schmidt61; 24th May 2020 at 04:02 PM. Reason: to add my opinion
schmidt61 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 24th May 2020, 04:54 PM   #1853
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 45,132
If you really want to discuss this case, the thread to go to is this one.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=340064

The zombie thread you just resurrected is an orphan twig from about ten years ago.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 24th May 2020, 05:36 PM   #1854
schmidt61
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Canada
Posts: 50
what do think of my points? I tried the thread you mention got ingored.
schmidt61 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 24th May 2020, 06:14 PM   #1855
Skeptic Tank
Trigger Warning
 
Skeptic Tank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,844
I think the notion that Knox and Sollecito were involved was always a dumb one. It was always clear to me that it was Rudy alone.
Skeptic Tank 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 24th May 2020, 07:13 PM   #1856
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 7,618
Originally Posted by schmidt61 View Post
what do think of my points? I tried the thread you mention got ingored.
I think you're preaching to the converted - there's only one person left who thinks that Guede DIDN'T act alone, so you're unlikely to get much argument from anybody.
Matthew Best 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 25th May 2020, 04:20 AM   #1857
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 45,132
Originally Posted by schmidt61 View Post
what do think of my points? I tried the thread you mention got ingored.

I don't think people were ignoring you. I think they agree with you but they've been round all that so many times it's not that interesting any more. The discussion has moved on. There is precisely one person who comes to this thread who doesn't think Rudy Guede acted alone and if you want to take her on, good luck with that.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 25th May 2020, 12:02 PM   #1858
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 13,756
The one thing that has always stood out to me is that Guede places himself at the cottage and Meredith's attack/death at between 9:00 and 9:30...precisely the time we know she came home. He does not give the timeline that the prosecution pushed in order to coincide with Capezzali's claim of hearing a scream about an hour or so later. Nor does Curatolo's claim of seeing A and R in Piazza Grimana at about 9:30 hanging around overlooking the cottage. If the attack happened when Guede claimed, the couple's clothes would have been covered in blood and, according to the prosecution, busily staging a rape and break-in and not hanging around the piazza for everyone to see.

There was no reason for Guede to place the time of the attack earlier than it actually happened. When telling a lie, it's always best to stick as close to the truth as possible as it's always easier to remember what actually happened. Additionally, by telling the truth about the time he arrived at the cottage, it would take care of any witness who may have seen him there.
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 25th May 2020, 01:49 PM   #1859
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,776
Originally Posted by schmidt61 View Post
Rudy claims the scream was loud enough to be heard on the street at around 9:00 or 9:20. if Meredith knew Rudy was in the cottage sitting on the toilet wouldn't the scream only have to be loud enough to alert him?

How long does it take him to get off the toilet getting down to Meredith door? A minute or less? He sees a man standing in front of Meredith room. He claims to see Meredith throat slashed bleeding on the floor? Isn't the area between Meredith door and the bathroom door small too small for two guys to be standing together?

The big question is how long does the attack ending with Meredith's throat to being cut take? Ten to fifteen minutes? Where the scream fit into the that time of ten to fifteen minutes? Would the attacker be in the hallway that quickly?
It also interesting that Rudy does think ONE PERSON could kill Meredith.


I think that ONE PERSON IS RUDY, not his imaginary attacker. Since no claims to hear a scream at that time. Since Nara Capezzali is sleeping. I also don't think Meredith let anyone into the cottage that night. Since Rudy doesn't mention Amanda being there for four months in his deposition March 26, 2008.

Yes, agreed.

This Guede Skype conversation has been visited within these threads several times. And there are a number of logical inferences to be drawn from it - the most important of which you've identified here too.

Firstly, it would be astonishing for Guede to have been more-or-less oblivious to any entry, scuffle, physical restraint (almost inevitably with raised voices on the part of victim and assailant(s)) by his mythical "other attackers" while he (Guede) sat on the toilet with his iPod on. And when he claims that he finally was alerted by this loud scream of Kercher's, he claims he rushed straight out to be confronted by the "real killer(s)" pushing past him to get out of the house - yet we know that Kercher's body was repositioned in ways which have nothing to do with Guede's claims to be "offering assistance", and which instead point far more strongly (and horrifically) towards her assailant repositioning her dying body to facilitate an ongoing sexual assault.

Second, this carefully-timed mention of the loud scream is extremely interesting. Why did Guede seem to find it relevant or important to recount the time and the volume of the scream to his friend? On the face of it, this would seem to be unusual information to recount. But...... I and many others suspect that Guede - knowing that Kercher had indeed screamed loudly (as he, Guede, started violating her perhaps) - was worried as to whether any ear-witnesses near by the cottage might have heard the scream and noted its time. Therefore (my/our thinking goes), Guede wanted to try to cement the time and volume of the scream into his bogus narrative, so that he couldn't be contradicted about it if indeed anyone else had heard the scream. He knew that if he made a point of including the timing and volume of the scream in his narrative, and that if this timing and volume were subsequently confirmed by external earwitnesses, this would almost certainly lend further credibility to his entire narrative.

There are several more things from that Guede Skype chat which warrant analysis, especially in the light of a) what Guede must have known at that point about the police investigation and the prime suspects, and b) what Guede must have thought about any connectivity between himself and the murder. I've long argued that one could safely convict Guede of the murder based only on four pieces of evidence: his handprint in Kercher's blood on the pillowcase of the pillow placed under Kercher's hips; his shoeprints in Kercher's blood in the hallway and kitchen area; his proven movements in the aftermath of the murder (specifically his visits to several bars and clubs in central Perugia only a few hours after the murder, and his flight to Germany); and his version of events (given in this Skype call and in other statements in custody).

These things, taken together, and compared/contrasted, constitute to me a BARD slam-dunk case for Guede's guilt in the murder of Meredith Kercher. And furthermore, all of the known reliable/credible evidence in this case a) solely points to Guede as a/the perpetrator of the attack and murder, b) is entirely consistent with Guede as sole perpetrator of the attack and murder, and c) does not reasonably require for there to have been anyone other than Guede acting as a perpetrator in this attack/murder.
LondonJohn 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 25th May 2020, 04:50 PM   #1860
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,656
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
These things, taken together, and compared/contrasted, constitute to me a BARD slam-dunk case for Guede's guilt in the murder of Meredith Kercher. And furthermore, all of the known reliable/credible evidence in this case a) solely points to Guede as a/the perpetrator of the attack and murder, b) is entirely consistent with Guede as sole perpetrator of the attack and murder, and c) does not reasonably require for there to have been anyone other than Guede acting as a perpetrator in this attack/murder.
An aside......

The way the Hellman court sidestepped the "controversy" of the factoid of multiple attackers was to remind both sides in his action that.....

..... it was immaterial to the decision he'd made. His only remit was to rule on whether or not RS and/or AK had been involved as part of a multiple attack.

Which the evidence showed they were not.

Maybe our Bavarian friend can correct me, but the series of "Rudy trials" had been the source of the "judicial fact", binding the hands of future trials, that there'd been multiple attackers.

That was the source of the false controversy. Of course, guilter-nutters milked this for all it was worth, ignoring that it was to the benefit of both prosecution **and** defence in the Rudy trials to stipulate multiple attackers - remember, Rudy's trials had been "fast track" where the evidence phase was missing.

Multiple attackers, therefore had been set in judicial stone with no evidence presented to support it. When actual evidence **was** considered, at the Massei trial, just about all experts testified that a lone attacker was fully consistent with what they'd seen.

And Rudy never denied being there, never denied that it was his DNA was found inside the victim. What he had was a disingenuous explanation for that.

That's where that sits. RS and AK have been exonerated, and the evidence is fully there to properly condemn Rudy Guede for a disgusting crime.

There is no controversy over this, except that Italian law seems to come to judicial facts that are sometimes obviously wrong, and demonstrably wrong.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 25th May 2020 at 04:51 PM.
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 25th May 2020, 04:53 PM   #1861
schmidt61
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Canada
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The one thing that has always stood out to me is that Guede places himself at the cottage and Meredith's attack/death at between 9:00 and 9:30...precisely the time we know she came home.
RG:Umm, she was game [c’è stata] and so was I. So, we see each other... So we went in, and I think it was about eight‐thirty, or eight‐twenty, they're saying that she told her friends she was tired and wanted to go home. But in fact no, we were supposed to see each other, we had made an appointment the evening before during the Halloween party, at the Spanish kids' house, and I can also say, well I don't know the street but I can say where it was. Quote from his Skype conversation.

In his March 26, 2008 deposition Rudy changed the time he arrived back at the cottage from his Kabob dinner based on his friend Phillip telling him the time was 8:26-8:27. In Phillip witness statement he claim not to have seen Rudy that night. So he returned to cottage finding that there still no one home, Meredith than arrived home a few minutes. Remember the prosecution states that Meredith walks by the CCTV at 8:41. Since Rudy says he doesn't wear a watch.
It interesting that Rudy would use this time since a earlier story dated November 12, 2007 stated Amanda wearing a white skirt was seen entering the cottage on the CCTV at 8:43. Its a week before Rudy's skype conversation on Nov 19. It is also the same day Raffaele's friend Janova Popovich(sp)was at the police station saying she saw Amanda at Raffaele's apt. at 8:40.

Last edited by Agatha; 30th May 2020 at 04:04 PM. Reason: fix quote tags
schmidt61 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 25th May 2020, 05:37 PM   #1862
schmidt61
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Canada
Posts: 50
Bill since Rudy's trial is based on evidence given by the prosecution which said that Rudy didn't use a knife in the attack. That the other attackers used at least one knife that being Raffaele kitchen knife with Amanda DNA on the handle and the Meredith on the blade. That would be fair but what has been fair in any of the trials.

Reading your posts over the years at Injustice Anywhere over the years I know you talk about the prosecution timeline. I been thinking they moved the time the killers arrived to between 11:15-11:30 with the scream happening at 11:30. I think that so they could argue the break-in is staged.
schmidt61 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 25th May 2020, 06:31 PM   #1863
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 13,756
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The one thing that has always stood out to me is that Guede places himself at the cottage and Meredith's attack/death at between 9:00 and 9:30...precisely the time we know she came home.
Originally Posted by schmidt61 View Post
RG:Umm, she was game [c’è stata] and so was I. So, we see each other... So we went in, and I think it was about eight‐thirty, or eight‐twenty, they're saying that she told her friends she was tired and wanted to go home. But in fact no, we were supposed to see each other, we had made an appointment the evening before during the Halloween party, at the Spanish kids' house, and I can also say, well I don't know the street but I can say where it was. Quote from his Skype conversation.
I think that was the time Guede was actually in the apartment before Meredith came home.

Quote:
In his March 26, 2008 deposition Rudy changed the time he arrived back at the cottage from his Kabob dinner based on his friend Phillip telling him the time was 8:26-8:27. In Phillip witness statement he claim not to have seen Rudy that night. So he returned to cottage finding that there still no one home, Meredith than arrived home a few minutes. Remember the prosecution states that Meredith walks by the CCTV at 8:41. Since Rudy says he doesn't wear a watch.
We know that Meredith could not have arrived home at 8:41 because her girlfriend says she arrived home at 9:00 having left Meredith just a couple minutes before where their paths split. I've walked that and it does not take any 15 minutes to get from where they parted to the cottage; at most 5-6 minutes. Besides, the 8:41 time stamp on the video is from the parking garage's clock and we know that it ran about 10-12 minutes slow.



Quote:
It interesting that Rudy would use this time since a earlier story dated November 12, 2007 stated Amanda wearing a white skirt was seen entering the cottage on the CCTV at 8:43. Its a week before Rudy's skype conversation on Nov 19. It is also the same day Raffaele's friend Janova Popovich(sp)was at the police station saying she saw Amanda at Raffaele's apt. at 8:40.
That is interesting. He could have read that Telegraph article and decided to use the time to validate his story. Of course we know that wasn't Amanda because she actually changed into the white skirt the morning of Nov. 2. The clothes she was wearing earlier the night before were on her bed. It's interesting to note that article is a prime example of the misinformation that was rampant in the early days. The headline for that story was Meredith Murder Suspect 'Caught on CCTV'.

I have to say it was interesting reading the comments on TJMK from August 2009. The Machine is quite certain and says it's "well established" that Raffaele made the 112 calls after the postal police arrived.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 25th May 2020 at 06:34 PM.
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 25th May 2020, 06:50 PM   #1864
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,656
Originally Posted by schmidt61 View Post
Bill since Rudy's trial is based on evidence given by the prosecution which said that Rudy didn't use a knife in the attack. That the other attackers used at least one knife that being Raffaele kitchen knife with Amanda DNA on the handle and the Meredith on the blade. That would be fair but what has been fair in any of the trials.

Reading your posts over the years at Injustice Anywhere over the years I know you talk about the prosecution timeline. I been thinking they moved the time the killers arrived to between 11:15-11:30 with the scream happening at 11:30. I think that so they could argue the break-in is staged.
There was no evidence presented at Rudy's trial, not in the sense that the defence gets to cross-examine or contest anything presented. It was a fast track trial, which has been described as a regular trial with the evidence phase missing. It sits somewhere between someone pleading "no contest", or accepting a plea bargain. All the prosecution need to do is present the "evidence" that they would intend to present at a contested trial.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/th...al-trial-26794
Quote:
Fast-track Trial

The giudizio abbreviato (fast-track trial, literally abbreviated or short proceeding) consists, basically, of proceedings where the trial phase is absent.

It is the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing who, according to the evidence gathered, during the preliminary investigations by the prosecutor and by the lawyer during the defensive investigations, if there were any, convicts or acquits the defendant.

Since this is a reduction of the defendant's rights (he basically gives up his right to presenting new evidence and to be tried by a Judge of the Trial), it must be he who asks that the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing hand down a judgment on him.

The defendant is rewarded with a reduction in sentence. The law states that this reduction is one third.

Both the defendant and the prosecutor can appeal the judgment before the Court of Appeal (rules on merit again, usually without gathering any other evidence) and even before the Corte di Cassazione, the highest Italian court (which cannot rule on merits, but only on correct procedure and correct interpretation of the law).
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 25th May 2020 at 06:53 PM.
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 26th May 2020, 09:13 AM   #1865
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,735
DNA does not have wings, but it can fly

"Prosecutor Carmel Barbagallo emphatically insisted in her opening address that "DNA within a particular sample did not just fly around a laboratory" — a point reinforced by PathWest scientist Martin Blooms in his testimony last month...There is also another documented instance of contamination of a sample by a person who had not come into contact with it. This is another twig from Ms Rimmer's burial site which was found to contain the DNA from the teenage victim of a totally unrelated crime in 2002. It turns out samples from that crime were processed five days before samples from the twig were examined, in the same area of PathWest and using the same batch of single-use sample tubes later used for the Rimmer samples." link to information on the Claremont killer case in Australia.

I recall that the prosecution in the Knox/Sollecito case asserted that DNA does not fly. There was also a question of whether or not a six-day gap was long enough to eliminate the possibility of DNA contamination. It appears that five days is not long enough, although I am not sure of the exact role that the tubes played (if any) in the Claremont case. In other aspects these two cases are very different, but one thing that can be counted upon is that the prosecution will try to downplay the ability of DNA to transfer.

EDT
Some time ago I wrote a blog entry that touched upon DNA transfer by various means. I misspelled "van Oorschot." In the Claremont thread, one can find more on the DNA contamination issues of this case.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 26th May 2020 at 11:08 AM. Reason: Added link and a short comment on flying DNA
Chris_Halkides 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 26th May 2020, 10:48 AM   #1866
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 13,756
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
"Prosecutor Carmel Barbagallo emphatically insisted in her opening address that "DNA within a particular sample did not just fly around a laboratory" — a point reinforced by PathWest scientist Martin Blooms in his testimony last month...There is also another documented instance of contamination of a sample by a person who had not come into contact with it. This is another twig from Ms Rimmer's burial site which was found to contain the DNA from the teenage victim of a totally unrelated crime in 2002. It turns out samples from that crime were processed five days before samples from the twig were examined, in the same area of PathWest and using the same batch of single-use sample tubes later used for the Rimmer samples." link to information on the Claremont killer case in Australia.

I recall that the prosecution in the Knox/Sollecito case asserted that DNA does not fly. There was also a question of whether or not a six-day gap was long enough to eliminate the possibility of DNA contamination. It appears that five days is not long enough, although I am not sure of the exact role that the tubes played (if any) in the Claremont case. In other aspects these two cases are very different, but one thing that can be counted upon is that the prosecution will try to downplay the ability of DNA to transfer.
But Chris, we have been told that DNA is very difficult to transfer:

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Haha! DNA doesn't fly. You have to grip something quite tightly to leave your DNA there, preferably a sweaty palm that has just touched the sebaceous DNA-rich glands near your forehead.
If that report is true, then we can only come to the conclusion that the contamination was the result of a nefarious plot by the mafia (or possibly the Masons) to influence the Claremont case.

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 26th May 2020, 06:38 PM   #1867
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 13,756
Chris, I read the article you linked to and found I very interesting. While the DNA may prove unreliable, there is other evidence in the Claremont case:

Propensity evidence — the fact Edwards carried out what the state describes as "strikingly similar" attacks on other women, including the 17-year-old girl he snatched from Claremont late at night, tied up and brutally raped.
(Edwards confess to this crime)

The Telstra Living Witnesses — the string of people who testified about a Telstra vehicle acting suspiciously in the Claremont area around the time of the women's disappearances.
(Edwards worked at Telstra)

The "emotional upset" argument — the prosecution's case that Edwards committed crimes at times of emotional crisis in his life.
(This I find irrelevant)

Fibres found in the hair of both Ms Rimmer and Ms Glennon — evidence which has yet to be heard — which the state says match fibres from Edwards's car and clothing.
(I think this is the most damning)
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 30th May 2020, 03:01 PM   #1868
schmidt61
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Canada
Posts: 50
The first time Rudy was at the cottage (boy's apt.) The first time he meets both Amanda and Meredith.

Rudy Guede March 26, 2008 Deposition page 9

Pros. Mignini Did you never frequent each other?

Guede We didn’t… I never frequented Amanda except, if we could call it
frequenting, later the evening when I was in the house of the guys

Pros. Mignini Understood. So before getting on to… so you saw Amanda again the evening that you went to Meredith’s house.

Guede No [the house] of the guys

Pros. Mignini Ah of the guys… of the guys

Guede Of the guys below but this was later however

Pros. Mignini This happened when?

Guede It happened… well the date it happened was in October however
the date I recall it was the birthday of another American friend of
mine, I would use that as the date

Pros. Mignini Eh

Guede However it happened in October, now I wouldn’t be able to say if it
was the 12th or the 14th
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.co...mony_(English)


Before you, Lawyer Brocchi told us of this theft you were subject to on the night between the 13th and 14th of October 2007
Testimony of Matteo Palazzoli

So the break-in at the lawyers office was October 13, and Guede first visit to the cottage was either the day before or the day after the break-in.
schmidt61 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 30th May 2020, 04:00 PM   #1869
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 13,756
Originally Posted by schmidt61 View Post
The first time Rudy was at the cottage (boy's apt.) The first time he meets both Amanda and Meredith.

Rudy Guede March 26, 2008 Deposition page 9

Pros. Mignini Did you never frequent each other?

Guede We didn’t… I never frequented Amanda except, if we could call it
frequenting, later the evening when I was in the house of the guys

Pros. Mignini Understood. So before getting on to… so you saw Amanda again the evening that you went to Meredith’s house.

Guede No [the house] of the guys

Pros. Mignini Ah of the guys… of the guys

Guede Of the guys below but this was later however

Pros. Mignini This happened when?

Guede It happened… well the date it happened was in October however
the date I recall it was the birthday of another American friend of
mine, I would use that as the date

Pros. Mignini Eh

Guede However it happened in October, now I wouldn’t be able to say if it
was the 12th or the 14th
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.co...mony_(English)


Before you, Lawyer Brocchi told us of this theft you were subject to on the night between the 13th and 14th of October 2007
Testimony of Matteo Palazzoli

So the break-in at the lawyers office was October 13, and Guede first visit to the cottage was either the day before or the day after the break-in.
What relevancy does this have?
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 30th May 2020, 06:09 PM   #1870
schmidt61
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Canada
Posts: 50
Remember that the break-in at the lawyer office is compared with the break-in at the cottage rock through a second story window? Rudy caught with stolen items from said break-in in Milan five days before break-in in the cottage? So the fact that Rudy first visit to the cottage is either the day before or the day after the break-in in lawyer office. Was he casing the cottage from the inside? Or by chance with the idea to break-in occurs to him after his visit.
schmidt61 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 30th May 2020, 07:58 PM   #1871
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 13,756
Originally Posted by schmidt61 View Post
Remember that the break-in at the lawyer office is compared with the break-in at the cottage rock through a second story window? Rudy caught with stolen items from said break-in in Milan five days before break-in in the cottage? So the fact that Rudy first visit to the cottage is either the day before or the day after the break-in in lawyer office. Was he casing the cottage from the inside? Or by chance with the idea to break-in occurs to him after his visit.
Yes, I realize the sequence of events but I don't see how Guede's first visit inside the boys' downstairs apartment is relevant to the date of the law office break-in.

While I believe absolutely that Guede was the burglar in the law office case, I think his breaking into the cottage was a matter of spontaneous opportunity.
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 30th May 2020, 10:44 PM   #1872
schmidt61
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Canada
Posts: 50
[quote][/While I believe absolutely that Guede was the burglar in the law office case, I think his breaking into the cottage was a matter of spontaneous opportunity.QUOTE]

There a video I think it was a story from OGGI magazine showing a man walking out of the parking garage entrance camera 7 they said was Guede. At around 7:50.


Attorney You have always said that above the car park…
Guede Ah yes because when Meredith arrived here’s why I say…
Profazio Where did she arrive from?
Guede She came down… I saw her
Profazio No, she came down, you have to explain it properly…
Guede From the gate… she entered the yard, let’s say, as I said to my
attorneys I hope the video cameras adjacent to the car park are
working… or that they were working that evening because when
Meredith arrived, in that moment above the car park and in any
case if there’s a person up there you can hear it even if speaking
with a normal voice and there were, in that moment, some people
up there. There in the car park.
Profazio How many?
Guede We heard someone locking their car, someone else talking normally

I believe that when Guede arrived at the cottage that night he already had breaking in mind. He was also aware that the top of the parking garage, where people would be walking around outside of their cars might a problem when it came to break the window. So when he arrives he walked up ramp to check where the cars were parked how many before using one of the stairwells to go down the lower level. Then walked out of entrance going to the cottage.
If you have watch the CCTV loop with cameras 7,11,15 over at the murder of Meredith Kercher.com you find 2/3 of the top of parking garage isn't cover by camera. He could also check how well the area in front of Filomena's was lite.

Which doesn't sound to spontaneous to me.

Last edited by schmidt61; 30th May 2020 at 10:46 PM. Reason: adding comment
schmidt61 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 30th May 2020, 11:50 PM   #1873
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 13,756
[quote=schmidt61;13108216]
Quote:
[/While I believe absolutely that Guede was the burglar in the law office case, I think his breaking into the cottage was a matter of spontaneous opportunity.QUOTE]

There a video I think it was a story from OGGI magazine showing a man walking out of the parking garage entrance camera 7 they said was Guede. At around 7:50.


Attorney You have always said that above the car park…
Guede Ah yes because when Meredith arrived here’s why I say…
Profazio Where did she arrive from?
Guede She came down… I saw her
Profazio No, she came down, you have to explain it properly…
Guede From the gate… she entered the yard, let’s say, as I said to my
attorneys I hope the video cameras adjacent to the car park are
working… or that they were working that evening because when
Meredith arrived, in that moment above the car park and in any
case if there’s a person up there you can hear it even if speaking
with a normal voice and there were, in that moment, some people
up there. There in the car park.
Profazio How many?
Guede We heard someone locking their car, someone else talking normally

I believe that when Guede arrived at the cottage that night he already had breaking in mind. He was also aware that the top of the parking garage, where people would be walking around outside of their cars might a problem when it came to break the window. So when he arrives he walked up ramp to check where the cars were parked how many before using one of the stairwells to go down the lower level. Then walked out of entrance going to the cottage.
If you have watch the CCTV loop with cameras 7,11,15 over at the murder of Meredith Kercher.com you find 2/3 of the top of parking garage isn't cover by camera. He could also check how well the area in front of Filomena's was lite.

Which doesn't sound to spontaneous to me.
A lot of misinformation was presented in the media in the early days. That OGGI article isn't credible. Guede was never identified as the person in the video. "They say" means nothing. "They" said that the video of a young woman in the parking garage was Amanda. That also was never verified.

Guede above said he saw Meredith walking down the driveway from the gate. This would work with his story that he met her there. We know that is not true. Guede was already in the house when Meredith arrived home at just about 9:00. He was likely in the large bathroom sitting on the toilet. Common sense also tells us that she was killed just after arriving home as she was still fully dressed, including her jacket when she was attacked. Which is another reason to disbelieve his story. Meredith would have removed her jacket at least if they had sat around talking for awhile and started petting.

As far as his story about the parking garage roof, he may well have heard or even seen someone up there and waited for them to leave before climbing up to the window and when throwing the threw the rock through it.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 30th May 2020 at 11:52 PM.
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 1st June 2020, 07:27 AM   #1874
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 275
YouTube video

Here's a YouTube video with Amanda and Steve Moore in back to back interviews about the Kercher case and cop malpractice in general. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA0V2_55rJE&t=1190s

It doesn't come up with anything new other than at 9:18 Amanda says she "went BACK to my boyfriend's house and spent the night with him there" after she received the text message from Lumumba. In both Amanda's and Raffaele's books they both say the text message from Lumumba was received when she was still at Raffaele's flat. I don't place a lot of significance to what she said in the video regarding exact details but it's always been a pro-guilt argument that she wasn't at Raffaele's flat when the message was received. Steve Moore pitches in with his usual stuff, though I've never been much impressed with him as a debater on the case.

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 1st June 2020, 08:59 AM   #1875
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 13,756
It has been almost 13 years since that night. It shouldn't be surprising that some details may get mixed up. Of course, we'll hear from the PGP that people get lies, not the truth, mixed up. But that isn't true.
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 1st June 2020, 09:44 AM   #1876
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,445
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
It has been almost 13 years since that night. It shouldn't be surprising that some details may get mixed up. Of course, we'll hear from the PGP that people get lies, not the truth, mixed up. But that isn't true.
Whenever I hear that argument I just ask why would Amanda lie about where she was when she received the SMS? It was long before Meredith arrived back at the cottage and only minutes before Popovic would see Amanda at Raffaele's. The SMS itself was an innocent exchange. The pro-guilt have always been so focused on finding inconsistencies so they could claim they were lies that they forget people only lie when they don't want the truth to be known. When the truth is perfectly acceptable, there is no motive to lie.
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 1st June 2020, 10:57 AM   #1877
schmidt61
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Canada
Posts: 50
Massei in his report says that Patrick's text connected with a cell tower that didn't cover Raffaele's apt. but then screws it up by saying that a phone call Amanda made the following day (Filomena) from Raffaele's apt. hits the same cell tower that didn't cover Raffaele's apt.
Massei also said in his report that at "some hearing" Amanda said she returned to the cottage after to the cottage saying she was glad she didn't have to work that night. So she could spent the night with her "boyfriend"

I always thought since Guede saying he was eating his Kabob in the same area. Amanda was suppose to be at roughly area at the same time they could have ran into each other and made plans to hook-up. Or so some guilters have said, but that was only online nothing was mention in court or by Guede.

Last edited by schmidt61; 1st June 2020 at 10:58 AM.
schmidt61 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 1st June 2020, 11:42 AM   #1878
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 275
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Whenever I hear that argument I just ask why would Amanda lie about where she was when she received the SMS? It was long before Meredith arrived back at the cottage and only minutes before Popovic would see Amanda at Raffaele's. The SMS itself was an innocent exchange. The pro-guilt have always been so focused on finding inconsistencies so they could claim they were lies that they forget people only lie when they don't want the truth to be known. When the truth is perfectly acceptable, there is no motive to lie.
Agreed. It's much ado about nothing. I thought I'd mention it for the sake of transparency. I've been watching your debate with Rag over mixed blood on YouTube with much amusement. He'd tried the same tactics on me only a few weeks ago. I pasted the same testimony from Stefanoni's May 23rd transcript as well as the original Italian so he could have no quibble over translations. I indicated to him that Massei and H/Z both referenced Stefanoni's conclusions that she can't confirm mixed blood but all to no avail. But hey! Rag has informed me that he is going to submit a new presentation on....you've guessed it. MIXED BLOOD!

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 2nd June 2020, 01:27 PM   #1879
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,649
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Not if there are 34 points being tested. Then the probability of 18 of them matching (and the other 16 not matching) is not at all remote.

Imagine how easily a dishonest prosecutor or journalist could make an innocent person seem like a definitive match, simply by not mentioning those points that didn't match.
The eighteen points is the minimum standard. Bear in mind, fingerprints are often unclear or incomplete. The suspect is given the benefit of a doubt by the imposition of a high legal bar. If it matches in at least eighteen points (iirc: this standard might have changed) then it is deemed 'compatible'. It has to be looked at in combination with all the other evidence. Strictly speaking the probability would be 0.5^18 - 17 degrees of freedom, assuming p=0.5, just as an example.


Likewise DNA. Normally a match of 8 or nine pairs of alleles identifies you but for a court of law the bar is set higher to eliminate the slightest doubt.
__________________
Fight the good fight with all thy might!
Vixen 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 2nd June 2020, 01:36 PM   #1880
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,649
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
In convicting the pair in 2009, Judge Massei struggled with a motive for AK and RS participating in what Massei saw as essentially Rudy's crime. As he said, Rudy did not need much motivation in assaulting a young woman in her room.

That's how tenuous it was even for the convicting judge to theorize about it all.

The closest Massei got in shoe-horning AK and RS into this, was by speculating that when they heard the commotion in the victim's room, the pair inexplicably joined in with Rudy.

Why? Massei further speculated (without a cintilla of evidence to support it) that AK was far from home and away from usual social norms, and thus "made a choice for evil".

That's it. Neither Mignini nor Comodi had speculated that way, nor had they entered any evidence to remotely suspect that that had been so. But that did not deter Judge Massei. Massei ignored everything about motive presented at trial and invented his own theory - from whole cloth.

From this vantage point 12 1/2 years later, and with the tabloid press no longer doing a full court press to sluttify Knox, all the 2009 reasoning for guilt looks even more ludicrous.

Who believes this stuff?
If Guede was a hormone fueled 20-year-old, as is typical and he seems to have been, do you think he would go to all that trouble to rape a random female and then not actually rape her? The DNA found was from epithelial cells, similar to those found on skin, in other words his fingers. Not sure if a penis would shed skin cells.

Anyway, it doesn't matter what the motive for the three was. To me it all points to premeditated thrill-seeking but that is just conjecture. It is a 'young adults' psychopathic peer killing, which is surprisingly common in the crime annals. There is technical scientific proof beyond all reasonable doubt to the the level of a criminal court of law of the involvement of all three. So whether it was spontaneous, accidental or sadistic ( and the injuries point to a cruel goading, with numerous knife flicks) there is no doubt who is responsible for the crime.
__________________
Fight the good fight with all thy might!
Vixen 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 05:25 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.