Sunday, June 12, 2011

Amanda Knox and the serial killer

I haven't blogged much (or ever?) about the Amanda Knox case. But not because I haven't followed it or formed opinions about it. I have. (I've always thought the prosecution's theory was ludicrous and that the crime itself is most compatible with a lone-killer theory, which is what the evidence supports.) I just didn't really have much to add to the discussion, if there even is much discussion here in the U.S. Until this week when my college roommate gave me a book to read on the plane ride home. She, like me, is a prolific reader. But unlike me, she does not like to keep physical books lying around her house. (Our roommate relationship worked well because she didn't mind my clutter as long as it stayed on my side of the room. Her side was neat, mine wasn't, and there was never any discussion or nagging about it. I don't respond well to nagging.)

The book she gave me was about a serial killer. Naturally, I wanted to read it. (Apparently, it's said that I spend too much time thinking about criminal law and cases, but really, what the hell else have I got to do?) So when I got to the airport ridiculously early for my flight because that's what I do, I started to read The Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi. (And in case you were wondering, I scored a window seat for my return flight, too.) I couldn't put the book down and finished it Thursday night. (The stuff I had to do just had to wait.)

Now you might think that a book about the only serial killer Florence, Italy has ever known (at least in modern times) has nothing to do with Amanda Knox's case, but you'd be wrong. The murders themselves, to any rational observer, clearly have nothing to do with each other. But based on what I learned from this book and other sources, I've concluded there isn't much that's rational about the Italian criminal justice system. I challenge anyone who thinks it's even possible that Amanda Knox is guilty to read this book and come away with anything but the overwhelming sense that there's just no reason to think she did anything.

Starting from the beginning. In 1981, Florence realized it had a serial killer on its hands. Between 1981 and 1985, someone was killing young couples who were getting to know each other all the way in their cars in the hills above Florence. Soon, officers realized this killer had also killed a couple in 1974. Eventually, the killer, dubbed the Monster of Florence, killed 7 couples total. The gun from those murders had also been used in a 1968 murder. The gun had left one very unique characteristic on all its shells. So the clear, logical solution is that someone with access to the gun used in that '68 killing became a serial killer. Preston and Spezi, who have studied the case for years, have a clear suspect in mind and it's the same person I had in mind before they identified him.

But that seemingly obvious suspect has apparently never been seriously investigated by police or prosecutors in Italy. Why believe that only one person is behind a series of gruesome murders when you can create a conspiracy involving hundreds? Occam's razor is not a preferred principle in Italy.

Instead of accepting the idea that they had a lone-acting serial killer (so prosaic, so American), they decided there just had to be more to it. Not because there was physical evidence to show there was more than one killer. But just because. They managed to convict 3 people of the murders, even though those people clearly lacked the mental faculties to plan such murders and conceal their guilt. One guy even confessed, but apparently it's a big thing to be "in the know" in Italy. So it seems this guy would rather be in the know and in prison for murder than not be part of the action. His story just doesn't match the physical evidence at all. For his story to be true, one of the couples had to have been murdered on the Sunday night before they were discovered on Monday. But another, far more credible witness, provided testimony that meant the murders happened on Saturday. And the scientific evidence also makes it impossible the couple only died 12 hours before being discovered. (I will spare you the details.)

But instead of accepting the testimony of the credible witness and the expert on decomposition, the prosecutors doggedly stuck to their theory. They also dredged up some unrelated 1985 suicide, decided it was really a homicide, and created an elaborate story about how the body had been switched in 1985 and then switched again 17 years later when the body was exhumed. I'm a little fuzzy on why the body-swap was supposed to have happened, but, sure, that's what happened. And then, in 2006, the prosecutor charged Spezi, accusing him of being part of the grand conspiracy behind the murders who was now trying to throw off the investigation by finding that expert and generally questioning the course of the investigation over the past 20 years. Who other than someone deeply involved in the murders, after all, would be so interested in steering the investigation away from the conspiracy theory?

Happily, reason ultimately carried the day and the charges against Spezi were dropped. Largely because the prosecutors also targeted the American writer, a best-seller, who mobilized the global journalism community to raise holy hell about it. Not only was Spezi released, but the prosecutor and chief investigator pushing the insane conspiracy theory were both found to have abused their offices and committed all kinds of misconduct. The prosecutor was actually sentenced to 2 years, but that sentence was suspended.

So, what does all of this have to do with Amanda Knox? Well, the disgraced prosecutor behind the arrest of Spezi and the nutty conspiracy theory about the Monster of Florence case is the very prosecutor who handled Meredith Kercher's murder and came up with the notion that it was a sex game gone wrong. Once again, Occam's razor would suggest that the likeliest explanation for Kercher's murder really is that the guy whose DNA is all over the murder scene, whose bloody handprint was on the wall of the room, and whose hair was clutched in the victim's hand is the guilty party. But the prosecutor just didn't like that Amanda; he had a bad feeling about her. I mean, she was buying lingerie in the days after her roommate's murder! (Never mind that she was barred from entering her home, the crime scene, so had to buy new underwear.) And she was making out with her boyfriend and smiling! (If they're talking about the video clip I've seen, I see two sweet, subdued, stunned kids finding a little comfort in each other. But I'm just a silly, prosaic American.) So he decided she did it (and the boyfriend, too), evidence be damned.

In one last interesting twist, there's a prolific blogger in Italy who lives for conspiracy theories. I'm afraid to use her name because I fear she might be one of those who would look up every webpage that has her name on it and I really don't want this crazy lady e-mailing me. But here goes. Her name is Gabriella Carlizzi. I do not know the name of her website. She is really one of the architects of the Monster conspiracy theory. She thinks it's all related to this mysterious Order of the Red Rose, some super-secret order dating back to Florence's heyday in the Renaissance. In her mind, the red rose guys are the cream of the crop in Florence society and engage in all sorts of perverse and satanic activities when no one's looking. They got all those simpletons to commit the monster murders and take body parts of the female victims so they could use those body parts in their rituals. And, no, of course there is no physical evidence to support any of this at all. Well, except for the hexagonal stone piece found at one of the crime scenes that is clearly a conduit between this world and the underworld. Or a standard Tuscan doorstop. Depending on how you look at it. (At one point, they finally thought they'd found the lair used by this sect. There were skulls and bones there! The search revealed Halloween decorations...) So clearly Carlizzi never met a conspiracy nutty enough to find unbelievable.

Perhaps you're already seeing where she took this? If you guessed that in the days after Kercher's murder, Carlizzi suggested on her blog that it was connected to the Monster of Florence conspiracy, you're a winner! Apparently those red rose folks were getting itchy to get back to the killing and satanic rituals, so they decided to try a different kind of murder. Or something. And that Amanda Knox was involved. It was the very next day that the prosecutor charged Knox and her boyfriend. In the book, Preston and Spezi write of Carlizzi having a Rasputin-like hold over this prosecutor. In his case against Spezi, the prosecutor used quote after quote after quote from her blog to the court. Spezi apparently had some fun pointing that out in his rebuttal.

This woman has no credibility. A prosecution based on a fantastical theory she came up with has no credibility. A prosecutor who would be guided by her (and has already been found to have abused his office, etc.) has no credibility. And yet Amanda Knox was prosecuted by this man spouting a fantastical theory originally thought up by this woman. How could anyone think her conviction has any credibility?

So, no, I don't think Amanda Knox is guilty. I don't even think it's possible. I don't think there is any rational reason for any person to believe otherwise. All the stuff against her is hysteria, sound and fury signifying nothing. The physical evidence points to Rudy Guede. All of it. But, Sarah, you say, what about the knife with Amanda's DNA on the handle and Meredith's DNA on the blade? Oh, you mean the knife that isn't the freakin' murder weapon?? Of course a knife that Amanda used to cook could have her DNA on it and the miniscule amount of Meredith's DNA on it is much more consistent with either transfer (some of her skin transferred onto Amanda who then carried it to the boyfriend's house and got it on the knife) or contamination at the lab. Either way, it really doesn't matter because that knife wasn't the one that killed Kercher!

The prosecution's theory simply defies all logic, ignores the actual physical evidence, and refuses to accept the likeliest explanation. Having now seen that this is just what prosecutors do in this region of Italy (especially this prosecutor), spin out crazy huge conspiracy theories and get innocent people convicted of murder, I have no doubt that Amanda Knox has no business being in prison. And I seriously question whether I will ever return to Italy. Which is a shame because I really did love Florence. But you never know where or when a dead body might turn up and how far the conspiracy behind that body might reach.

272 comments:

1 – 200 of 272   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

An excellent article and right on the money. BTW, Carlizzi is dead -- not that this will stop the prosecutor from consulting with her on the case.

S said...

Thanks for the info! I googled her just yesterday; I wonder why I didn't find out about her death.

At least her death should stop her from e-mailing me!

Transplanted Lawyer said...

One thing that seems different about the Italian system as opposed to ours is the autonomy of the judges. It is the judges, not the prosecutors, who are pushing for investigation into governmental corruption. In the Amanda Knox case, she couldn't have been prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced without a judge sympathetic to the prosecution's theories. One can even imagine scenarios in which prosecutors receive pressure from the bench and must come up with and present in court theories which please the judges, instead of investigating the truth and pursuing justice (which is, come to think of it, something that does not seem to happen with astonishing regularity here, either).

S said...

Yes, the word judge there doesn't always mean what we think it means. I have to study much more to really understand the roles everyone plays in trials.

Also, the jurors are paid and do many cases, rendering them more part of the system than impartial outsiders like we have here.

In terms of comparisons to the US, this case does bring to mind the West Memphis Three where a crazy theory about satanic rituals took hold. We are certainly not immune to this kind of criminal justice nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Great context you reported, all facts. Anyone who believes she is guilty is blind. Journalists had an impact on the Monster Of Florence case and they are also coming forward on this case. So are many others incl. 11 Italian politicos. http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/05/26/11-italian-politicos-say-investigate-amanda-knox-prosecution/
Amanda will be home by fall or sooner and w/ no help from our State Department that has failed miserably to protect this young honor student from Seattle, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Anti-americanism is rampant and throwing the blame of a drug infested business running in Perguia to International students, specifically one naive American girl will not stand. Bring Amanda home. Now! Enough is enough!

michellesings said...

OH MY GOSH! This is truly excellent! If it's OK, I'd love to pass this around and put it on my little Blog. What you wrote here wraps this conveluded bizarre beyond bizzare stories right up in a little nutshell. You've done this so well that it makes it more easily understandable to the average person who doesn't know the intricacies of this case, or even to those not familiar at all with it. Many people know of Amanda Knox. Most believe she is innocent. But, truly, most people don't understand this whole conveluded story. Thanks for writing this. I'm truly impressed. Please...blog more! :) PS I also, though horrified at what happened in the murders, couldn't put that book down.

mikeb302000 said...

Thanks S for a wonderful post. But, do come back to Italy someday. It's a great country in spite of its many problems.

Patrick King said...

Thanks for your excellent article, Sarah. Although the motive for this prosecutor's behavior appears nonsensical or erratic, I would fist suppose, in both of these cases, Mr. Mignini was working to cover up the true culprits in both of these crimes. By prosecuting Preston and Spezi, he made certain no other pesky journalists would uncover any more information. By railroading Knox and Sollecito, he managed to get Rudy Guede's sentence lowered from 30 years to 16. With good behavior, Guede, the murderer of Meredith Kercher, will be on work release in 2014. As you point out, there is something very unorthodox about this prosecutor. I've tried to learn the basic facts of who he is, his parents, where he went to school, how he became a prosecutor, none of it is public information. The only cases he's identified with are The Monster of Florence and Amanda Knox.

Joshua said...

I am not so sure. After reading Barbie Latza Nadeau's book, the crime scene evidence of footprints in the hallway, smeared blood in the bedroom, blood drops near the shower, and DNA on the knife it seems very unlikely that Amanda had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder. Even in her prison diary she attested to having heard Meredith's screams. And cleaning supplies purchased the morning after the murder? Not the primary killer, sure. Involved in the crime, absolutely.

Kevad said...

Joshua, the information Barbie sets forth in her book was spoon fed to her by the authorities and very misleading. In Italy the prosecution often leaks information to reporters that is not fully accurate, and no reporter is ever held accountable for the errors, mistakes and manipulation that results. If a person says they were hit in the head twice, they seek many years in prison. Very few reporters dare to report in Italy of the many problems with this case because of fear of being charged with a crime. The footprints in the hallway were likely false positive Luminol results which many cleaners kept at home cause, as a second test TMB was completely negative and no DNA from blood was found. Scientifically, there is no proof the footprints were made from blood of Meredith, none. There was no smeared blood of Amanda in the bedroom, she left NO DNA in the murder room, and a few locations they found her DNA are completely normal because she lived there. There is no blood mixed of Amanda anywhere with Meredith’s. There was a small amount of Amanda's blood in her bathroom consistent with problems with her ears. The recent DNA experts found NO DNA of Amanda on that knife, and no Blood DNA of Meredith. If you pay attention to the truth and the details, you would learn, they have no proof of Amanda's involvement, NONE.

S said...

Thanks, Kevad, for responding to Joshua before I got back here. It drives me crazy how people keep bringing up that knife when it doesn't have any blood on it and WASN'T THE MURDER WEAPON!!!

Plus, it just doesn't make sense to think this was a group crime. Why would Amanda and Rafaelle play some sex game and then commit murder with a guy they didn't know? And just where IS the evidence of the sex game, anyway? Other than Rudy Guede's testimony, which has no credibility because turning on Amanda and Rafaelle amounted to a get out of jail half-price card for him.

As Patrick noted, there is something very hinky about this prosecutor.

The whole case just stinks to high heaven and I sincerely hope Anonymous is right that Amanda will be home this year.

S said...

Michelle, share away.

Anonymous said...

Sarah, you rocked! Thank you so much!

Grace Moore said...

Everything is very strange about this case. One particular strange occurrence is due to a so-called prank bomb threat , the police were at the residence (documented in the judge's motivation report), said to be searching the premises for a bomb, within two hours following the time Rudy Guede and the victim's paths first crossed the evening she was murdered (known fact). The following morning prior to the body being discovered, two cell phones stolen from the victim were found in the garden of the residence the police searched for a bomb, or maybe they were searching for cell phones, and the bomb threat was staged to provide an excuse to search for the phones? Who will answer this question?

S said...

Grace, that is the first I have ever heard of that and I have read a lot about this case. Can you point me to where I can find documentation about that, ideally with a link? Thanks.

Harry Rag said...

The evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is overwhelming. They gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have credible alibis despite three attempts each. All the other people who were questioned had one credible alibi that could be verified. Innocent people don't give multiple conflicting alibis and lie repeatedly to the police. 

The DNA didn't miraculously deposit itself in the most incriminating of places. 

An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was found on Meredith's bra clasp. His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17.

According to Sollecito's forensic expert, Professor Vinci, Knox's DNA was on Meredith's bra. 

Amanda Knox's DNA was found on the handle of the double DNA knife and a number of independent forensic experts - Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Professor Francesca Torricelli - categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade. Sollecito knew that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade which is why he twice lied about accidentally pricking her hand whilst cooking.

There were five instances of Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in three different locations in the cottage.

Knox tracked Meredith's blood into the bathroom, the hallway, her room and Filomena's room, where the break-in was staged. Knox's DNA and Meredith's blood was found mixed together in Filomena's room, in a bare bloody footprint in the hallway and in three places in the bathroom. 

Rudy Guede's bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith's room and out of the house. This means that he didn't stage the break-in in Filomena's room or go into the blood-spattered bathroom after Meredith had been stabbed.

The bloody footprint on the blue bathmat in the bathroom matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot, but couldn’t possibly belong to Guede. Knox's and Sollecito's bare bloody footprints were revealed by luminol in the hallway. 

It's not a coincidence that the three people - Knox, Sollecito and Guede - who kept telling the police a pack of lies are all implicated by the DNA and forensic evidence.

Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she was involved in Meredith's murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. After she was informed that Sollecito was no longer providing her with an alibi, she stated on at least four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed. At the trial, Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox's alibi that she was at his apartment.

Knox accused an innocent man, Diya Lumumba, of murdering Meredith despite the fact she knew he was completely innocent. She didn't recant her false and malicious allegation against Lumumba the whole time he was in prison. She admitted that it was her fault that Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother on 10 November 2007.

The English translation of the Massei report can be downloaded from here:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=53735

S said...

For the last time, that knife HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MURDER. The DNA is not consistent with being used in a vicious, bloody homicide, but being a household item that people touched. It isn't blood DNA, it's just DNA. Most likely skin cells. The knife is just flat irrelevant and a very damaging red herring.

Of course Amanda's DNA would be found throughout her house, so of course there would be spots where Meredith's blood mixed with Amanda's DNA. That evidence has no probative value whatsoever.

As for the bra clasp, an item that sat on the floor for 6 weeks is pretty suspect from the start. I'm curious to see the scientific report that indicates it matches at 17 of 17 loci as I've never seen DNA testing go beyond 13.

Amanda and Rafaelle told differing stories and Amanda implicated Lumumba because they were subjected to intense questioning. It's pretty well documented that people will admit to all kinds of crazy things, implicate people, change their stories, etc, to stop questioning like that. Something like 20% of our DNA exoneration cases involve confessions.

Given the way the police and Mignini handled the Monster of Florence case and how they trusted clearly-lying witnesses, don't know how to process a crime scene, and only look at evidence through the lens of the theory they've already decided on, I just flat don't trust one word they say.

The fact remains that the DNA all over Meredith's room points to Guede. What we know about rape-murders points to it being a single perpetrator.

Harry Rag said...

Nobody has ever provided a plausible innocent explanation for Knox's and Sollecito's numerous lies before and after 5 November 2007 or proved there was any contamination.

Judge Hellman asked Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti to evaluate the procedures used by the scientific police and to confirm whether the attribution of the DNA on the knife and bra clasp is correct.

The fact that Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti want to check the minutes related to the seizure of the knife and the testimony of the officers involved indicates that they accept Meredith’s DNA was on the blade and want to rule out any possibility of contamination.

Judge Micheli ruled out the possibility that the knife was contaminated during the collection phase because the DNA samples were collected by different officers at different times in different places.

Dr. Renato Biondo, Professor Francesca Torricelli, Luciano Garofano and Professor Giuseppe Novelli have confirmed Dr. Stefanoni’s forensic findings. This is ominous for Knox and Sollecito.

So is the fact that the defence experts were unable to prove that there had been any contamination at the trial. If any evidence of contamination existed, it would have been presented at the trial. Alberto Intini, the head of the Italian police forensic science unit, pointed out that unless contamination has been proved, it doesn't exist.

S said...

By the way, Mr. Rag, when you come on here and post lies, don't think I won't catch you in them. And once I've caught you in a lie, I'm not going to trust much else you've said.

When luminol testing is done and reveals biological material, those spots are then given a preliminary test to see whether it is presumptively blood or not. When that presumptive test comes back negative and no further testing is done, you do not get to state that the spot was blood. No matter how much you want it to be blood or feel in your gut it is blood.

But by stating that those spots ARE blood that Amanda tracked into Filomena's room, you're basically proving the main point of this post which is that the evidence bends to fit the theory rather than the theory bending to fit the evidence.

Harry Rag said...

The footprints were tested for blood. Luminol was used to detect the presence of blood at the cottage and it is the most sensitive blood detection technique commonly used by forensic investigators. Luminol was has been found to be five times more sensitive than TMB (Tetramethylbenzidine). This explains why the TMB tests yielded negative results.

Furthermore, forensic investigators who regularly work on crime scene can easily distinguish between the bright blue glow of a blood trace and the much fainter glow of other reactive substances.

It should also be noted that reactive substances also produce different colour spectrums. For example, it is straightforward to distinguish between blood and bleach. The luminol couldn’t have been reacting to bleach anyway because bleach dissipates after a couple of days and there will be no trace left. The luminol tests at the cottage were carried out on 18 December 2007.

No scientific test is 100% accurate. However, Judge Massei and Judge Cristiani accepted that the luminol was reacting to Meredith's blood. You could argue that the luminol was reacting to turnip juice, but no sane person would take you seriously.

You haven't addressed Knox's and Sollecito numerous lies before and after 5 November 2007.

You also don't seem to understand that in Italy it's not enough to claim contamination; the defence experts have to prove it.

Harry Rag said...

Your blog article is being discussed on the Perugia Murder File website. I'd like to read your response to the following comments:

The ranting public defender was apparently convinced of AK's innocence by reading Mario Spezi's book, and a loose grasp of the facts.

"Once again, Occam's razor would suggest that the likeliest explanation for Kercher's murder really is that the guy whose DNA is all over the murder scene, whose bloody handprint was on the wall of the room, and whose hair was clutched in the victim's hand is the guilty party. "

The hair that was clutched in Meredith's hand was long and blonde. I think too little has been made of the significance of the long, blonde hair found on the body. It could not have been from the head of RG or Meredith, and it seems unlikely that Meredith brought the hair in herself. Since a hair was clutched in her hand, it seems likely that Meredith pulled it from the head of one of her attackers while trying to defend herself. The only head with access to the cottage that could have produced such hair ins AK. In any event, the long blonde hairs pretty much rules out the lone wolf theory.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=375&start=1500

Randy N said...

Harry Rag is an idiot!

If the luminol footprints are made with MK blood as you state then why is there no DNA of MK found in these footprints? Did it dissappear? The turnip juice trick used by Comodi in court may ahve worked for the weak minded Massei but the appeal court wont accept such lame lies. No DNA means no blood...got that?

You want to address lies by the defendants. First lets address lies by the police,and the prosecutors. I know I can list ten lies of these people to every 1 lie you can prove. BTW the Italian Supreme Court says that in court nothing can be used prior to Nov 6th since the defendants were denied the right to an attorney. You are crazy if you think Hellmann will allow the hijinx that Massei allowed. Aint gonna happen.

The blond hair is a Harry Rag lie. But feel free to show this in evidence or please list the page of the famous Massei report where we can read about this blond hair.

Stop lying to the people. I hope AK tracks your ass down and sues the crap out of you.

Most likely you are a basement dweller with nothing worth sueing for anyway.

So...got any facts of this case that point to the guilt of AK or RS? Or are you just gonna keep up your lying liar ways?

S said...

Thanks for sparing me that, Randy N.

I had already caught on that Harry is not to be trusted or believed. Clinging to that luminol thing is telling. Who cares that the only test run shows the biological material wasn't blood? I'm going to say it is, so there!

In his report, Massei did the same thing. I'm pretty horrified at the speculation run rampant in Massei's report. It just further supports my firm conviction that this prosecution is nuttier than a squirrel's nest.

S said...

But, Harry, even though I think you have no credibility, I will answer this question for you. No, I can't prove any DNA contamination. Of course I can't. It's a hard thing to prove. But you seem to think that means I have to accept the evidence as probative proof of guilt. Aren't I still entitled to look at the evidence with some skepticism?

And from checking out that Perugia board, you all really need to study up on DNA transfer. It's not something I just made up.

Randy N said...

More dumb things Harry Rag says...

The Knife? Which knife Harry? The one that cant possibly match two out of three wounds? The one that does NOT match the blood imprint left by the real murder weapon on the bed sheet? The knife that has been proven to not be cleaned and yet tested negative for blood? The knife that Stefanoni found what she claimed to be a LCN trace amount of MK DNA that no other lab in the world will ever verify because of the non scientific pseudo science she used?

The bra clasp does not contain any AK DNA but feel free to list that evidence with a page number in Massei joke book...errr report.

The bra clasp does contain at least 4 differnet sets of unknown DNA though which shows that this piece of evidence collected 6 weeks after the murder and found in a trash heap under a dirty rug is severly contaminated. I wouldnt be surprized if they found Harry Rag DNA on that clasp.

Alberto Intini is Stefanoni boss. Of course he will say that his lab made no mistakes. But because he says that doesnt make it true. In fact it is proven that Stefanoni lied in court when she claimed the Luminol footprints were not tested for blood. Intini's lab was not even certified to the lowest standard at the time these tests were done. Intini lab withheld evidence from the defense lawyers and they tried to withhold the same EDF from the court appointed experts. Hellmann ordered these files turned over which Intini did 2 days before the hearing. This caused a 40 day delay in the trial. The days of Massei antics are over Harry Rag. You cant try this case with bull shit anymore.

BTW what is your guess at the TOD given all the known facts of the case?

S said...

Yeah, Randy, I just can't take anyone seriously who points to the knife or the bra clasp. (Seriously, if that knife had anything to do with Meredith's murder, wouldn't they have found larger quantities of DNA on it? And blood DNA? Because it wasn't blood on the knife, after all.)

The name, Harry Rag, makes me thing of a reporter for some highly disreputable "news magazine." I mean the kind that makes the National Enquirer look like the golden standard of journalistic ethics and fact-checking.

Anonymous said...

Wow! Sarah you are a very clear writer, and a clear thinker. Your article is just excellent.

I have been following this case for years, partly because I have a daughter about Knox's age, and partly because I'm a lawyer and so the case was interesting to me (I don't practice criminal law).

The prosecution's case does not pass the "blush test". It doesn't make sense. Amanda Knox was a 20 year old honor student with no history of sociopathic behavior. She worked multiple jobs to be able to study abroad. The prosecution theory has this honor student engaged in a sex-fueled group murder of her roommate, in her first month in Italy?

Well, extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence. In this case, the only extraordinary aspect of the "evidence" is its total lack.

In my opinion, the media circus created by the absurd sex/drugs/murder story offered to the press by the prosecutor is what led most directly to the unjust conviction. Most U.S. juries are not sequestered, but they are instructed not to read media accounts of the crime, and not to discuss it with others. My understanding is that in Italy jurors are actually encouraged to read up on the case.

As I am sure you know, "Harry Rag" is part of a small group (or a single person posting under different names?) that prolifically spread lies and misinformation about this case all over the internet. I cannot imagine what dark place motivates these folks.

Thank you for your clear post.

-RD

Anonymous said...

Also left out of the story was that the prosecutor interrogated Know without allowing her a lawyer or even an interpreter, for almost 50 hours. Additionally, the interrogation was NOT videorecorded (as required by Italian law and as was the USUAL standard in that locale. After 50 hours of sleep-deprivation the girl would have confessed to killing JFK by firing shots from the grassy knoll (only 20 years before she was born)

The likelihood that a 20 year old female with NO CRIMINAL HISTORY WHATSOEVER would engage in a murder in cold blood of another female simply isn't worth mentioning.

The young lady was railroaded.

BellsforStacy said...

First ... wow. You apparently hit an internet nerve with this one!

I know very little about this case but am glad I read your blog about it. I am interested in what happens to this young lady and after reading this blog (and these comments) I hope she is seen safely home.

S said...

Stacy, you should see my statcounter. Through the roof! Apparently if you want to drum up blog traffic, write about Amanda Knox.

RD, I'm so curious about these people who misrepresent the case so vociferously. It's nuts. The media circus that surrounded this case in Italy starting from the day after the murder is ridiculous. Media in Italy and the UK (Meredith Kercher's home country) just flat made stuff up. Stuff about orgies and satanic rituals and sex games and who knows what all else. And it still irks me no end that they took Amanda's childhood soccer nickname (Foxy Knoxy) to somehow suggest she's some diabolical sociopath. I'm horrified to think of the jurors being encouraged to read that crap.

And as for her statements to police, yeah, people will confess to all sorts of things under the right psychological duress. And for a lot of people, that threshold is lower than you'd think. There's a famous case in Texas, the yogurt shop murders. Through awesome police work [end sarcasm] no fewer than 50 people have confessed even though not one of those people were guilty.

Anonymous said...

S- It is nuts! The tabloid accounts were crazy. The papers are selling copy, people are making up stories to sell to the tabloids, and these poor kids are sitting in jail.

Those so-called confessions are complete BS. You have two twenty(ish) young students, already traumatized by the tragedy of Meridith's murder, sleep and food deprived, in a foreign country, and tag-teamed by these bullies, who are not even following their own procedures. At that age, kids believe everybody is seeking justice, and that truth will prevail.

Well, I hope so, but it makes me want to cry that they have been imprisoned for over three years.

There are a lot of good, smart people working to correct this injustice. The husband of michellesings (who posted above) is Steve Moore a former FBI agent. He has written some compelling articles based on his law enforcement background.

Chris Halkides at www.viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com is a biochemistry professor who has been blogging on this case from the beginning, and explaining the problems with the DNA "evidence".

Good people.

-RD

S said...

Thanks for sharing that information, RD.

Sometimes I feel like my cautions about DNA evidence fall on deaf ears. It's like people just don't want to think critically about it at all. Like the fact that finding Amanda's DNA in her own house isn't probative at all. People just stop as soon as they hear, "There's DNA evidence!" without stopping to think what does it mean.

And no one wants to hear that DNA isn't magical, infallible evidence. That a lot of "matches" involve partial profiles or mixed profiles and those both increase the possibilities of false negatives. I once wrote a whole blog rant about how defense attorneys don't have access to challenge those astronomical stats the prosecution always cites.

I could go on and on. I just hope Amanda's incarceration (and Rafaelle's) does not!

BMN said...

On every blog I keep reading guilters' comments that are laced with misinformation and misinterpretations. They are obviously aware that not everyone can devote so much time to thoroughly acquaint themselves with all the details of the case. Therefore, they are deliberately bombarding the internet with their own lies and distorted views in the hope that something will stick. Why can't their ill-intentioned efforts be thwarted through censoring, howsoever unpopular and undesirable the word may seem? How long can one just keep wasting time in catching the lies of the guilters? Any posts, criticisms and rejoinders that are based on truth, logic and/or verifiable or well-accepted views should however be allowed, of course.

S said...

You know, BMN, I had heard there were these people out there, but I didn't think my little blog would ever attract their attention. Although, really, it only appears to be the one. And I trust my regular readers will trust me when I say I have read Maessi's report and the things Harry Rag was claiming aren't true.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm...this is a very biased blog. With respect, the Italian criminal justice system is one of the most liberal in the world. A unanimous jury convicted Knox following a very public, year-long trial. The State Department saw nothing wrong with the trial which convicted Knox, and nor did Amnesty International, which campaigns for unjustly imprisoned prisoners.

This rather naive, juvenile blog fits in with those constantly produced by a small gang of Knox 'fans' (Patrick King, who wears Amanda Knox T-shirts, and Michelle Moore included) - they post all kinds of misinformation 24/7 because they think a PR blogging campaign will get her out of prison. In fact it is up to Knox's highly paid Italian lawyers to mitigate on her behalf, and so far they have failed miserably. She's a convicted killer and sex assailant because of the overwhelming evidence against her.

BMN said...

The prosecutor, who has been convicted for abuse of office, claims the knife and bra clasp to be the most crucial evidence. This evidence has already been trashed by many experts in the field. A recent discussion and some relevant links available on: http://forensicdnaconsulting.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/dna-issues-surrounding-the-amanda-knox-case/

Larry said...

Regardless of the merits of the case, why would you "seriously question" ever returning to Italy? Aren't there plenty of miscarriages of justice in the good ol' US of A?

Grace Moore said...

S said..."Grace, that is the first I have ever heard of that and I have read a lot about this case. Can you point me to where I can find documentation about that, ideally with a link? Thaks"

Judge Massei's report, English translation. Word search for 'bomb' and you will find it.

S said...

Thanks, Grace. That report is so long, I've read huge chunks of it and still manage to miss stuff.

S said...

Larry, I was joking. I just wanted to make the joke about never knowing where a body might turn up. Though I would rather be subjected to a miscarriage of justice in my own country where it would be much easier for my family and friends to visit me.

S said...

Anon, I admit I am biased in favor of the US criminal system. It's far from perfect, but I'll take it over any other system out there. I don't think the State Department and AI's acceptance of a verdict out of a western European country should be seen as evidence that the trial was just. Our State Department, and rightly so, does not want to be in the business of telling one of our closest friends how to conduct their criminal trials, no matter how much of a circus they think it was. Likewise, this case just isn't in AI's wheelhouse.

Can you acknowledge that the 3 men convicted in the Monsterof Florence case had nothing to do with the killings? Because if you can't admit that, you have no credibility with me and your labels of me as naive and juvenile will carry no weight. I hope you could further agree that it was beyond outrageous that Mignini still insisted on taking the pharmacist to trial even after Pacciani's conviction was reversed. At least the pharmacist was acquitted, but geez, it should never have gotten that far.

By the by, please tell me where there is ANY evidence that Amanda is a sex assailant? I'm looking for something a little more probative than her DNA was found in the bathroom, please.

Grace Moore said...

Nothing Harry Rag says should be considered anything near truth. He has proved to be a lier so many times it's getting boring to challenge he rhetoric. Over a year ago he was telling me there were pictures of Amanda arriving at the apartment the evening Meredith was murdered. He gave me a link to a picture from the CCTV cam taken during the day, the picture in no way resembled Amanda, plus the picture was from the rear of some woman walking out the parking garage exit during daylight.

The CCTV Cam photos said by the authorities (during 2007) to be Amanda Knox arriving at the apartment driveway at 8:43 pm, quoted by the media, turned out to be Meredith arriving at her apartment at approximately 8:51 pm. Amanda answered the door at Raffaele's apartment at 8:40 pm so it was impossible to say this was Amanda unless the authorities wanted to admit they lied about the cam timer being fast and change back to their original story release to the media that the cam timer was found to be 10 minutes slow.

The CCTV cam is not mentioned in Massei's report at all. Apparently the reason is the CCTV cam photos clearly demonstrated the cops lied, and the CCTV cam photos captured Guede arriving soon before it captured Meredith arriving, coupled with Guede's statement to police that he was at the apartment waiting for Meredith, clearly demonstrated Meredith first encountered Guede at 8:56 pm as she was attempting to call her mother. The call was interrupted before her mother answered. I have no doubt that it was Guede attacking Meredith that interrupted the call. Apparently The authorities went through a lot of trouble and lies to cover this up. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_XHJ4CMn40sboqLooHxEkUJg1WYX2IUOcBOXLDCpeqg/edit?hl=en_US

Anonymous said...

@S wrote: 'Likewise, this case just isn't in AI's wheelhouse.'

Why not? The fact that Amnesty hasn't lifted a finger to help an American who claims her human rights were violated in a foreign jail - one in which she still resides - says everything.

If one fifth of your claims were true, this would be a perfect case for them, but you know what: Amnesty is run by very clever, ethical people and they can see that a confident college student who lies repeatedly instead of countering the hard evidence against her is not someone they want to get involved with.

Knox's decision to blame Patrick Lumumba for Meredith's murder was wicked in the extreme. She stuck with this lie right up until Patrick had an alibi.

Innocent people don't lie, S., and expecially not educated ones from good families. I suspect that you 'support' Knox for no other reason except than she is like you - young, attractive, entitled, white and American. You are entitled to do this but,again with respect, I do think you are very wrong.

The Italians didn't think yet another black criminal (count the number in European and US jails) should serve Knox's sentence for her, and nor did the State Dept nor Amnesty.

All must be commended for ignoring the simplistic, 'feel-good' stereotypes which you rely on. Lots of criminals love children and animals, and come over and sweet and kind. The pictures you see of Knox on the web playing with babies are completely irrelevant (although I fear the one of her pretending to shoot a machine gun in a Holocaust museum is rather more worrying!)


Knox was convicted on hard evidence in a European Union democracy. She gets two automatic appeals, like every other convicted criminal, but at present nothing has emerged to suggest that the exhaustive trial ended with anything except the right result.

Grace Moore said...

FOR THOSE NOT FAMILIAR, RUDY GUEDE TOLD POLICE HE WAS AT MEREDITH’S APARTMENT WHEN SHE GOT HOME. HE WAS CAPTURED BY THE PARKING GARAGE CCTV CAM ARRIVING AT MEREDITH’S APARTMENT TWO TIMES SOON BEFORE SHE GOT HOME. OBVIOUSLY THEIR PATHS FIRST CROSSED AT 8:56 PM AS MEREDITH WAS CALLING HER MOTHER.

MASSEI SAYS IN HIS REPORT THAT GUEDE’S WHEREABOUTS THAT EVENING IS NOT KNOWN, SO HE ASSUMES GUEDE ARRIVED WITH AMANDA AND RAFFAELE AT 11 PM. IS THE JUDGE STUPID OR WHAT?

halides1 said...

Both luminol and TMB can detect diluted blood. Even if I accept that luminol is more sensitive, I would have to believe that each time both were used, the concentration of blood fell into a narrow range where luminol was positive and TMB negative. That is unlikely on the face of it, and it is made less likely by Garofano's statement of how luminous the footprints were. Highly diluted blood does not elicit as intense a luminol reaction as more concentrated blood. Moreover, Harry Rag's explanation fails to account for why none of Meredith's DNA was found in the footprints. Nor does he account for why there are only a few of them and all right feet.

Grace Moore said...

Harry Rag and Mignini are grasping at straws,

Grace Moore said...

Per retired FBI investigator Steve Moore, standard practices is to to test Luminol hits with TMB. If the TMB test is neg for blood, no further testing is necessary because the substance is not blood.

If the TMB test results were questionable, then why did the authorities feel it was necessary for them to make false statements in court when they said tests for blood were not performed, and did not include the tests' results with the lab reports they presented to the court? Is this PERJURY?!!!

S said...

"Innocent people don't lie, S., and expecially [sic] not educated ones from good families."

Like hell they don't. Read John Grisham's "An Innocent Man." Read Barry Scheck's "Actual Innocence." Read anything about wrongful convictions. False confessions happen all the time. Scared people implicate others all the time.

When I was in law school, our innocence project branch helped secure the release of a young man named Christopher Ochoa. Ochoa had pled guilty and testified against his co-defendant/friend. Both men were finally exonerated in 2002. So why on earth would Ochoa plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit and falsely testify against his friend? Hmm, could it be that innocent people really do lie?

Grace Moore said...

Plea deal. Not good for justice.

Grace Moore said...

From today's wikipedia article: "Luminol revealed footprints in the flat, which the prosecution argued were compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito.[48]:373[54] The authorities testified that tests for blood had not been performed and presented police crime laboratory reports that mentioned no tests. Later, the defence produced laboratory reports revealing that a test had shown no evidence of blood. The judge concluded that the blue blurs revealed with the luminol had originated from Knox's bloody feet.[55]"

The problem with the judge's "conclusion" is there is no evidence of Amanda having blood on her feet, or being in the bedroom where Meredith was murdered. I guess the judge based his "conclusion" on the footprints that tested negative for blood.

For those not familiar, the wiki article 'Murder of Meredith Kercher' is under the control of a group of supporters of the prosecution that have been successful in blocking all other editors and are free to spin the article. They are using wikipedia as a platform to publicly prosecute Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Grace Moore said...

Apparently this is the pro prosecution wikipedia editors/administrators' hit list. Apparently Black Kite is the mechanic/ torpedo/hit-man:

Revision as of 16:39, 11 June 2011

Aruu (talk · contribs) - first edit 18.06.2010, inactive lately

Cawalt (talk · contribs) - first edit 30.12.2010

Charlie wilkes (talk · contribs) - first edit 30.08.2010 Blocked indef by Black Kite (meatpuppetry and votestacking) 23/12/2010

Faceforward (talk · contribs) - first edit 05.08.2010

Gregmm (talk · contribs) - first edit 01.09.2010 Blocked indef by Black Kite (sock) 02/09/2010

HarvardMan2000 (talk · contribs) - first edit 05.09.2010

Jaberryhill (talk · contribs) - first edit 26.07.2010; first edit on this topic 07.08.2010 Blocked indef by Black Kite (meatpuppetry and votestacking) 23/12/2010

JSL5871 (talk · contribs) - first edit 16.07.2010 Blocked indef by MLauba (personal attacks) 09/09/2010

Kermugin (talk · contribs) - first edit 30.06.2010; first edit on this topic 04.07.2010 Blocked indef by Black Kite (meatpuppetry and votestacking) 23/12/2010

Lilome (talk · contribs) - first edit 20.06.2010

NathanWard1234 (talk · contribs) - first edit 20.07.2010

Perk10 (talk · contribs) - first edit 01.09.2010 Blocked indef by Black Kite (meatpuppetry and votestacking) 23/12/2010

PhanuelB (talk · contribs) - first edit 26.04.2010 Blocked indef by John (disruption) 08/09/10

PietroLegno (talk · contribs) - first edit 01.07.2010; first edit on this topic 22.07.2010

Tjholme (talk · contribs) - first edit 13.08.2010 Blocked indef by Black Kite (meatpuppetry and votestacking) 23/12/2010

Yoyohooyo (talk · contribs) - first edit 21.06.2010 Blocked indef by Black Kite (disruption) 25/09/2010

CodyJoeBibby (talk · contribs)
GeniusApprentice (talk · contribs)
BruceFisher (talk · contribs)
Issymo (talk · contribs)
Truth Mom (talk · contribs)
Turningpointe (talk · contribs)
RoseMontague (talk · contribs)
Michellesings (talk · contribs)
Jbird75 (talk · contribs) - first edit was to request "confirmed" status in order to edit protected page.diff
Moodstream (talk · contribs)
NigelPScott (talk · contribs)
RockSound (talk · contribs) Created on 29/6/2010, SPA, blocked indef by Black Kite (sock) 11/06/2011

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pablo_X/spa"

List address: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APablo_X%2Fspa&diff=prev&oldid=433741151

Doug Bremner said...

Just to clarify, the "confession" was the police keeping AK overnight with 12 rotating cops who took the train overnight from Rome for a planned all night confession. The "interpreter" told AK a story about how she broke her ankle and couldn't remember it, and then they got AK to "imagine" a scene with Lumumba there (they were pushing for Lumumba after finding the "see you later" text on her phone). She immediately retracted in a written statement the next day.

There is a large scientific literature on the creation of false memories. The pro guilt group chooses to ignore it. None of them have shown to me any evidence of a knowledge of the science of psychology, or any other special knowledge for that matter. So be it, it doesn't matter. Non taped statements are not admissible in court according to article 141 of the Italian code of criminal procedure (CCP) and statements from suspects without a lawyer present are not allowed by article 111.

Grace Moore said...

The following is to a link where the pro-prosecution editors/administrators are fishing for ways to block more people from editing the 'Murder of Meredith Kercher' wikipedia article, that they dominate.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zlykinskyja

Grace Moore said...

Apparently Massei's clerical help didn't do a good job proof read his motivation report. They left his butt hanging out. Go to the following link for a good laugh:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cm6gYXd4LrozsuzIX0KoqTi8nV3AP0BC9AohMuHdaZw/edit?hl=en_US

BellsforStacy said...

Seriously, I am in awe of this.

And I take issue with someone calling this blog juvenile. You negate your entire argument when you personally attack. If your facts don't back up your statements you wouldn't resort to insults.

S said...

It's been crazy, Stacy. And all because my friend gave me a book to read on the flight home.

S said...

Doug, I totally agree it is so frustrating when people refuse to acknowledge the reality of false confessions. And so often, these things do begin when police ask their innocence-claiming suspect to "imagine" how it might have gone down.

If rational readers are interested in reading more about how these interrogations can be spun into confessions, again I urge you to read John Grisham's "An Innocent Man" where the false confession was stated as a dream. Or "The Dreams of Ada" by Robert Mayer about a similar case out of the same town in Oklahoma where another false confession was obtained in the same manner.

BMN said...

A minor correction, "The Innocent Man":
http://www.jgrisham.com/the-innocent-man/

Kaosium said...

The evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is overwhelming.

All the evidence in this case points directly to a deluded, disingenuous prosecution.

They gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder.

Raffaele Sollecito was by his own admission 'smoked' on hash that night, his computer records and the witness testimony from Joanna Popovic agree that he was at home with Amanda.

Amanda always said she was at home with Raffaele except when the police put the screws to her all night long and freaked her out and managed to convince her to sign two worthless statements that corroborated with nothing, neither the crime as committed, forensically, or as prosecuted, delusionally.

Neither Knox nor Sollecito have credible alibis despite three attempts each.

The computer records show interaction all night long, information that recovered after the police overwrote it the night of the interrogation.

All the other people who were questioned had one credible alibi that could be verified. Innocent people don't give multiple conflicting alibis and lie repeatedly to the police.

None of the rest of those people questioned spent all night in the backrooms of the police station being drilled by cops who were suspicious because of entirely mistaken or bogus reasons.

The DNA didn't miraculously deposit itself in the most incriminating of places.

I agree with you here, Harry, it was no 'miracle!' :P

For one thing the 10 or less picograms on the knife were found in Raffaele's drawer, about a quarter mile away, and the knife wasn't used in the murder. It is evidence against the prosecution that they ever presented it as such.

An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was found on Meredith's bra clasp. His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17.

Well gee, when you have the profiles from about four people to pick and choose from, you can find just about anything that matches, and going from the RFUs the DNA that was putatively Raffaele's was in the low template range anyway.

Why did Stefanoni refuse to release all her files to first the defense during the trial and later the independent experts?

At any rate, considering how that bra clasp motivated itself around the room of its own accord and was 'found' the day after the police were exposed on television as total incompetents the fact that clasp showed up with Raffaele's DNA at the same time they were manufacturing the luminol hits as 'evidence' is damned suspicious as well.

Regardless being as those 200 or so picograms are the only evidence whatsoever of Raffaele in the murder room and he has an alibi with the computer, again this is merely evidence against the prosecution.

Kaosium said...

According to Sollecito's forensic expert, Professor Vinci, Knox's DNA was on Meredith's bra.

He meant the bra clasp, which is technically part of the bra anyway.


Amanda Knox's DNA was found on the handle of the double DNA knife and a number of independent forensic experts - Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Professor Francesca Torricelli - categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade.

Amanda's DNA was on the handle because she cooked with it, no one knows for sure what those 10 pgs were because they refused to release the files, only that Stefanoni made it look like they were Meredith's. However, how did every last trace of blood get removed from that knife whilst leaving the DNA of Amanda, those other 10 pgs, and starch? That's not possible in a rational universe.

Sollecito knew that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade which is why he twice lied about accidentally pricking her hand whilst cooking.


Nah, he was trying to figure out how it could have gotten there normally, and convince his father, sister and maybe himself a little that it wasn't Amanda's doing, who'd he'd realized couldn't have been involved.

There were five instances of Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in three different locations in the cottage.

She lived there, Rudy washed up in the bathroom she shared with Meredith, it was basically inevitable that DNA would mix.


Knox tracked Meredith's blood into the bathroom, the hallway, her room and Filomena's room, where the break-in was staged. Knox's DNA and Meredith's blood was found mixed together in Filomena's room, in a bare bloody footprint in the hallway and in three places in the bathroom.

The footprints weren't blood, they tested negative with TMB. Naturally Amanda and Meredith's DNA could mix in places in the cottage as they lived there together.

Rudy Guede's bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith's room and out of the house. This means that he didn't stage the break-in in Filomena's room or go into the blood-spattered bathroom after Meredith had been stabbed.

No, all it suggests is the last thing he did was leave that room, perhaps he went back for money or phones and covered her up and then fled in horror at what he'd done. It is unlikely he staged a break-in being as he was a burglar with a history of breaking in to second story windows.

The bloody footprint on the blue bathmat in the bathroom matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot, but couldn’t possibly belong to Guede. Knox's and Sollecito's bare bloody footprints were revealed by luminol in the hallway.

The real bloody footprint on the bathmat sure looks a lot more like Rudy's than Raffaele's with that weird big toe of his, and if it had been compared to Rudy's by this 'expert' it probably would have been more 'compatible' with his. The rest of the footprints could have been anyone in the cottage and they weren't blood!

Kaosium said...

It's not a coincidence that the three people - Knox, Sollecito and Guede - who kept telling the police a pack of lies are all implicated by the DNA and forensic evidence.

Only one person was ever implicated by the forensic and DNA evidence, Rudy Guede. That's why that's all they ever found in the murder room belonged to him until they went back 46 days later and 'found' the bra-clasp and 'discovered' the luminol hits they then tried to pretend were blood, despite testing negative for it.

Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she was involved in Meredith's murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007.

Amanda Knox's 'involvement' in the murder is as an innocent witness that was mentally and emotionally abused by police in Perugia and signed under coercion and duress two entirely worthless statements that were thrown out by the Supreme Court.

After she was informed that Sollecito was no longer providing her with an alibi, she stated on at least four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed.

No, she didn't. She tried to work out how when the cops lied to her that they had 'hard evidence' of her at the scene, and they insisted she must have 'repressed' the memory whether she could have actually been there. Her only flaw was not to tell the cops 'stop lying and get me a lawyer!'

At the trial, Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox's alibi that she was at his apartment.

He recanted the nonsense that couldn't possibly have been the night of the murder, thus there was no reason for him to testify at the trial. Maybe he will at this one just so you won't ever be able to say this again! :P

Knox accused an innocent man, Diya Lumumba, of murdering Meredith despite the fact she knew he was completely innocent. She didn't recant her false and malicious allegation against Lumumba the whole time he was in prison.

The cops 'accused' Patrick and bullied her into signing two incoherent statements in Italian legalese when she barely read Italian. She was a victim of the trusting cops who were lying to her and who emotionally and mentally abused her in a highly vulnerable state. She tried to explain more in the note, where she says it is unreal to her, like a dream, but they cut that part out when they used it against her.


She admitted that it was her fault that Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother on 10 November 2007.

That's because she's a nice person who feels badly when other people use her--even peripherally--to hurt someone else.

The English translation of the Massei report can be downloaded from here:

Which everyone should read--critically. It shows how far they have to stoop to pretend Amanda and Raffaele were involved in a murder that was obviously the work of one man whose currently in prison for it.

Anonymous said...

I agree that all the nasty evidence against Amanda is ‘imagined’. This has been proved by leading crime fiction writer John Grisham.

When Amanda blamed a black man for killing Meredith she had been badly beaten up, and was a psychological wreck. You could see how badly she had been treated when she appeared in court. She was covered in injuries and looked like a broken woman.

The long, detailed confession to being at the murder scene which Amanda wrote with her pen was ‘imagined’. It does not in fact exist.

Amanda did not want Patrick to go to prison in her place, or to ruin his life. This is ‘imagined’.

The brutal ‘tag team’ which attacked Amanda, beating her round the head, is currently under investigation by the International Court of Human Rights, and faces prosecution. Amanda is also suing them for libel.

It is absolutely certain that anything which incriminates Amanda – like her lies, her DNA, her blood mixed with Meredith’s, her cell phone records, her lack of alibi, her late night call to mom, etc – is ‘imagined'.


Amanda is a nice girl who loves animals and children, and despises drugs, alcohol abuse, and any kind of criminality. So is Rafael. His love of knives is ‘imagined’ too. The fact that he is scared to speak in court is ‘imagined’. The fact that his claims have completely contradicted Amanda’s is all down to ‘imagination’ too.

The black guy, though, is definitely guilty. He is a typical murderer. So was the guy who Amanda ‘imagined’ did it. Any decent person would have ‘imagined’ this too.


The Italian police could have framed the other black guy. Instead they chose to ‘frame’ a US college student. This kind of thing happens all the time in Italy, where the prisons are full of US college students.


The jury of Italian civilians and three judges who unanimously convicted Knox following a year-long trial ‘imagined’ the evidence.

I ‘imagine’ that this corrupt jury had been attacked by the kind of ‘tag team’ which normally deals with the Mafia or American college students.


Anybody who thinks that the US State Dept and Amnesty International would campaign on behalf of a US citizen who was attacked by police and then unjustly imprisoned abroad is just juvenile and na├»ve. I ‘imagine’ that such organizations have much more important cases to be dealing with.

Oh, did I mention that a young woman called Meredith Kercher was attacked and left to die in agony by three knife-wielding criminals, Italy’s Supreme Court has ruled?

Oh, don’t tell me, I probably ‘imagined’ all that too.

S said...

[sighing wearily] Actually, Anon, yes, I think the case against Amanda was imagined up. Amanda's blood wasn't mixed with Meredith's blood. When you flat make stuff up like that, how else would you say it except that it's "imagined?" The knife that the guilters are all so hot on wasn't connected to the murder, had no blood on it. Boy, howdy, if there were any way any of you could say there was blood on it, you sure would! As we know from the "bloody" footprints that weren't blood at all.

The idea that the break-in was faked is imagined. The idea of a sex game was imagined. This whole idea of Amanda secretly being some femme fatale into foursomes with near strangers was imagined.

The idea that Amanda bought cleaning supplies that morning was imagined. About 9 months later, to be exact. And by the way, if she really did buy cleaning supplies, why didn't she clean anything??

Amanda was at Rafaelle's house at 8:45. She had spent every other night that week at his house. Why, all of a sudden, did she and Rafaelle both leave that house, go back to her cottage, and attack Meredith, Amanda's friend?

It doesn't just happen in Italy that these kind of crazy imaginings can lead to convictions. In the US we have the West Memphis Three, caught up in the nutty idea that satanism was taking hold among America's youth. We have all the daycare cases, where juries were told that nice, normal daycare operators hid evil clowns in secret, underground rooms where children were molested. None of that ever happened. All of the physical evidence in the Memphis case points to a clear suspect, not one of the teens. And it is now widely acknowledged that the daycare cases were crap. I believe Amanda Konx and the 3 convictions in the Monster of Florence case are Italy's version of those miscarriages of justice based on wild imaginations.

And, no, Amnesty International doesn't get involved in garden variety criminal trials in the US and Western Europe. Their ONLY activities in US criminal cases involve the death penalty. Their work in trials around the world focuses on political cases. They don't consider prosecutorial misconduct to be the type of human rights violation they get involved in. They just don't.

Anonymous said...

S you know nothing. Amanda left DNA in Meredith's blood. Idle theories of innocence to explain this are hogwash. She is a proven liar. Her boyfriend said she ASKED him to lie for her, and he did.

halides1 said...

You wrote, "her late night call to mom, etc – is ‘imagined'." Comodi imagined this call at 3:00 AM Seattle time, when in fact it happened at 4:45 AM. Your list has so many half- and quarter-truths that one could make a quiet living rebutting all of them.

halides1 said...

Anonymous,

Even Colonel Garofano discounted the mixed DNA in the bidet, as he should have the rest of it. One cannot say when DNA was deposited, despite Massei's risible attempts to do so. Stefanoni's team should have changed glove for each sample of evidence. No wonder they found mixed DNA.

S said...

Anon, you said "Amanda's blood mixed with Meredith's blood." This is not true. Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood would be a true statement, but to say Amanda's DNA was blood is unknowable, thus I called you out on misstating the known.

Since your follow-up comment backed off and called it only Amanda's DNA, perhaps you will acknowledge you were wrong.

And has been noted many, many, many times, the mixed DNA was found in the bathroom. There is no room in the house more likely to have an occupant's DNA than the bathroom. It would have been more surprising if they hadn't found Amanda's genetic profile mixed in with the blood in the bathroom.

But those mixtures of DNA aren't probative, precisely because we would expect to find lots of Amanda's DNA in her bathroom.

halides1 said...

Anonymous,

Raffaele gave spontaneous declarations in court, and he backed up her alibi in front of Judge Matteini. No one should infer guilt from a defendant's not testifying, IMO. That is the principle embodied in the Griffin rule.

Michael said...

S-
Having struggled through your above article, the kindest thing I can say, is that you do not have even a basic understanding of this case. your piece is riddled with very basic factual errors from start to finish. The rest of your article, is then spent building arguments based on those factual errors. I strongly suspect that the reasons for this are your choice of source materials when researching this case.

What I suggest you do, is read the source documentation. Harry Rag posted recently providing you with a link to the Judge Massei Motivation Report from the trial. No doubt, you overlooked it, being to busy attacking Mr Rag. Here it is again. Please download and read it, it should at least straighten out a good many of your factual errors:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=259

I can also provide you with the link to Judge Micheli's Motivations Report, which I also strongly advise you read.

I would address your factual errors , but they are so numerous I don't even know where to begin, so I shall simply provide some glaring examples:

1. You claimed the prosecutor charged Mario Spezi. This is false. Italian prosecutors don't have the power to charge anyone. Only an Italian court judge can charge an individual. In and of itself, this mistake isn't important. However, it does expose your ignorance on the most basic level of how the Italian system works and that is quite important when trying to understand Italian case and even more so if you are going to publicly level all manner of accusations against it and the individuals involved.

2. You claim the prosecutor handling the Meredith Kercher case created a conspiracy theory while prosecuting the Monster of Florence case. This is patently false. Prosecutor Mignini was never involved in the Monster of Florence case. It was handled by other prosecutors in another jurisdiction and it was they that developed said theories. The case prosecutor Migninni handled was the Narducci case which he believed may have been connected to the Monster of Florence case. This case he inherited, the theories for it having being already developed by the previous prosecutor.

(continued next post)

Michael said...

(Continued from previous post)


3. You claim Prosecutor Mignini at one time claimed the mitive for Meredith Kercher's murder was Satanic. This is false. Prosecutor Mignini has never claimed this (read Judge Micheli's Motivations Report).

4. You stated that prosecutor Mignini used Carlizzi for his information. He did not. Carlizza was a kook and would regularly write to various prosecutors in different cases. If you want to say simply by virtue of their receiving her letters in the mail it means they listened to her, then I would say that's going a bit far. In the end, she went to far and Prosecutor Mignini had her arrested. They were hardly friends or partners working together to build theories.

5. You stated that Guede's bloody handprint was on the wall. This is false. The handprint was never identified, being to smeared to be usuable. It therefore could just as easily have been Amanda Knox's, Raffaele Sollecito's or even Meredith Kercher's.

6. You stated that the knife certainly wasn't the murder weapon but provide no evidence to support that claim. You do however go on in your comments section to argue that the DNA on the blade wasn't blood DNA. You do realise, it isn't possible to know this? The testing performed on the DNA was LCN (Low Copy Number. LCN can reveal profiles from extremely small samples. It cannot however, reveal what type of cells the sample came from. One cannot determine cell type with the LCN method. This basic knowledge is important, since you use your misunderstanding of it to build a whole argument of why the knife isn't the murder weapon. All your arguments demonstrate flawed foundations such as this one.

I could go on. But I'll just end it here by saying this. You need to improve and broaden your sources. For example, you base your whole knowledge of the Monster of Florence case on a single book. You do realise, almost as many books have been written about the Monster of Florence case as the Jack the Ripper case? You arguments are incredibly naive, for they are equivilent of picking up and reading a single random book on the Jack the Ripper case and gushing "I understand it all now, it's all so obvious, it's clear who Jack the Ripper was and why he did it, why hasn't everyone else seen the light?"

If only life was that simple and everything was so black and white.

Michael said...

S wrote:

"And has been noted many, many, many times, the mixed DNA was found in the bathroom. There is no room in the house more likely to have an occupant's DNA than the bathroom. It would have been more surprising if they hadn't found Amanda's genetic profile mixed in with the blood in the bathroom."

Not in the nature in which they were mixed. Samples were taken from the top of the blood stains. One doesn't have lakes of DNA beneath that bubble up through it, it doesn't work that way. It indicates the DNA mixing was done prior to it's deposit, not during or after. The 'prior' therefore indicates this occurred during the murder.

Let us also not forget Amanda's DNA (which 'may' have been blood DNA, since we know Knox was bleeding) was mixed with Meredith's blood in Filomena's room. None of Filomena's DNA was present in the sample.

Michael said...

S Wrote:

"Doug, I totally agree it is so frustrating when people refuse to acknowledge the reality of false confessions. And so often, these things do begin when police ask their innocence-claiming suspect to "imagine" how it might have gone down."

Oh, Doug's going to totally agree with you and everything you say. Do you know why? Doug's sister is Anne Bremner, the celeb lawyer who's the nominal head and representative of the Friends of Amanda (FOA) action group created to lobby and PR on behalf of Amanda Knox. Most of those posting here to cheer your article and comments are also members of the same group. They will clap and cheer anything you say, no matter how factually incorrect it may be, in fact add more wrong facts and lies themselves in the comments, just as long as you're cheerleading for Amanda. In other words, you're preaching to the choir.

halides1 said...

Michael,

You are incorrect with respect to the bidet trace, in which Stefanoni took the whole trace, right down to the plug. It would be nigh on impossible to take just the top surface of the blood, if that is what you mean. Your statement about the DNA in Filomena's room is misleading. Filomena's reference sample was not taken, and there were extra alleles in one of the mixed DNA samples there. If that DNA were deposited innocently, why do you believe that Amanda's DNA was not? I suggest that you and everyone else read the Massei report.

If Amanda were injured during a struggle, where were the wounds on her body? Despite what you say, the few drops of blood on the faucet (tap) could have been left at any time. They were not easily seen except under strong light.

halides1 said...

Michael,

The idea that the DNA on the blade came from blood yet the TMB test was negative is strong evidence that the DNA did not originate from blood cells. The presence of starch on the blade is further evidence that this was an ordinary kitchen knife that had no role whatsoever in this crime.

BellsforStacy said...

Seriously. Every time I come back there are 15 more comments. S are most of these from Italians? Because if so me thinks they protest too much.

S said...

Stacy, Michael is a major presence on a message board website called peugiamurderfile. I believe he's the creator of that site, but if I'm wrong, I'm sure he'll correct me. Actually, he seems more inclined to "correct" me when I'm right... A lot of hits are coming from the UK and other parts of Europe. Not so many from Italy itself, actually.

Michael and Anon's tendency to be so loose with the evidence (insisting there are bloody footprints, that there's blood in Filomena's room, their refusal to acknowledge that the experts have said that ordinary kitchen knife found in Rafaelle's apartment didn't cause Meredith's wounds) only further proves my point that this whole investigation and prosecution isn't based on sound science and evidence collection.

S said...

Michael, are you seriously going to deny that false confessions occur? Because if you are, that tells me and any rational reader all we need to know about your credibility.


Oh, and please point me to the DNA experts who are saying the DNA was mixed prior to being deposited. Because in my numerous cases dealing with mixed profile samples, I have never heard an expert say that there was any way to tell how two profiles became mixed.

And to try to claim that the Narducci case wasn't part and parcel of the Monster of Florence case is just silly. The only reason anyone ever thought the rather garden-variety Narducci suicide could ever have been more was because of the ludicrous MoF conspiracy theory.

At least we agree that Carlizzi was a kook, but come on, Mignini got busted quoting her word for word in the Spezi circus. Will you also, pleas, agree that Spezi should never have been arrested, charged, prosecuted, whatever the correct word is?

The more you try to build your case against Amanda, the more desperate, irrational, and fanatical you look. Anytime you have to assume things (like that DNA that didn't test positive for blood was in fact blood), you only make it more difficult for me to believe your theory. And Maessi's report, which you're so keen on, is so full of assumptions and speculation as to be laughable. Anyone reading from a dispassionate, neutral spot (like me, whether you believe that or not) can see how flawed the case against Amanda and Rafaelle is.

Anonymous said...

The fact that Bremner writes about a 'pro guilt group' says it all. He thinks this case is a sports games between two rival teams. Well it isn't: millions of people the world over believe in due process and the rule of law. They don't belong to any 'group', least of all one called 'the guilters' (what an embarrassingly childish term!)


Any objective, rational observer can see why Knox implicated herself in this murder. If they are patient and intelligent enough to read into the case properly, analysing the evidence which was rehearsed in court, they can see exactly why the unanimous guilty verdict was reached too.

In contrast, people like Bremner, Moore, and King fill their posts with excitable, sports fan terminology, whooping and yelling for 'our girl'.

Faced with such trite cynicism, it's unsurprising that the authoritative figures approached to take up Knox's case (including Hillary Clinton), just don't want to know.

Everybody including Meredith's parents are convinced of Knox's guilt (if Knox really was Meredith's 'friend', by the way, surely they'd have been the first people to embrace the simplistic cliche that 'the black man did it'. They've done nothing of the sort, because they are as intelligent as they are dignified.)

The Italian police refused to simply pin everything on one (or, if Knox had had her way, two) black men either. If they had, none of us would ever have even heard of this case. Knox has done everything possible to get away with her crimes, but the Italians found her out - this is nothing to do with 'imagination', and everything to do with justice and decency.

Finally, S., I think you're misguidedly assuming that there is only one person posting as 'Anonymous', when in fact there are a number. You see - life isn't always as simple as you seem to want it to be. If you can think beyond your cosy stereotypes and 'gut feelings', you'll have a much better chance of understanding the intricacies of criminal law.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 8:56,

Wow. Your post is a textbook example of the old litigators adage, "If you have the facts, pound the facts, if you have the law, pound the law, if you have neither, pound the podium."

S. and Chris have exposed the errors in the other arguments presented here, so I guess you haven't much choice.

Your argument is Amanda and Rafaelle must be guilty because:

para 1: Guilters is a childish term.

para 2: If a rational person reads "into the case properly" they must (somehow) come to that conclusion.

para 3: You don't like sports fan terminology.

para 4: Hillary Clinton didn't intervene with the Italian justice system.

para 5: Meredith's parents (according you you) think Amanda is guilty, as if for some reason they should, in their grief, be campaigning to free Amanda (whom as far as I know they have never met).

para 6: It would be racist for the Italian police to pin the crime on the suspect that all the evidence points to, and who fled the country after the murder.

para 7: More than one person is posting as "anonymous".

Brilliant.

-RD

S said...

Wow, so that's what's going on here, huh? It would be racist to embrace the simplistic idea that the black guy did it?

But, the black guy did do it! No one anywhere disputes that Rudy Guede is guilty here. Concluding that he is guilty isn't simplistic. It's simple, but it's not simplistic.

It is unfortunate that he happens to be black and so his guilt of rape and murder feeds into racist stereotypes. But that's no reason to go out and invent a wild, unsubstantiated theory that two white kids were also involved.

I can't help but notice that you folks defending Amanda's conviction (I won't call you "guilters" if you don't like that term, it's just a term I picked up somewhere) never respond to the rational, logical questions that people who have doubts about Amanda's guilt ask. Where's the evidence that she was involved in a sex game? Why did she and R leave R's place after 8:45 when they had spent every night that week there? Why did she supposedly buy cleaning supplies that morning but then not clean? She had plenty of time as no one else was at the cottage.

It just defies all reason and logic to include Amanda and Rafaelle in this crime. Rudy as s lone killer makes so much more sense. And the amount of assumptions and contortions to the evidence you have to go through to get to a point of finding those two guilty is what's overwhelming, not the evidence against them.

Again, the case against Amanda is all sound and fury. No substance.

And, duh, I am well aware there is more than one person posting as anonymous.

Michael said...

halides1 wrote:

"You are incorrect with respect to the bidet trace, in which Stefanoni took the whole trace, right down to the plug."

You misunderstood what I meant. When I said the 'top' I meant the surface of the stain.

You wrote:

"Your statement about the DNA in Filomena's room is misleading. Filomena's reference sample was not taken,"

It din't need to be. Only the profiles of Amanda Knox and the victim were found in the sample. No other DNA profiles of persons known or unknown were found. Ergo, they weren't there.

You wrote:

"If Amanda were injured during a struggle, where were the wounds on her body?"

I don't know why you are asking me this question as you already know my answer. A ripped out earing or/and nosebleed.

You wrote:

"Despite what you say, the few drops of blood on the faucet (tap) could have been left at any time."

No, they couldn't have. Amanda's own email home and testimony on the stand confirmed they could only have been deposited the evening of the murder. The blood on the tap was not there the previous afternoon and in the morning was already dry when Amanda arrived.

Michael said...

halides1 wrote:

"The idea that the DNA on the blade came from blood yet the TMB test was negative is strong evidence that the DNA did not originate from blood cells. The presence of starch on the blade is further evidence that this was an ordinary kitchen knife that had no role whatsoever in this crime."

The TMB test is not sensitive enough to detect a blood sample that small which (may) have been on the blade. At most, the amount of the sample that was submitted for blood testing (30%) was one or two cells, but was just as likely zero, due to the small nature of the original sample. The rest was used for DNA testing. Therefore, the blood test in this case cannot be used to 'rule out' the presence of blood. Judge Massei also presents this fact in his report.

Harry Rag said...

@Sarah,

You haven't provided a plausible innocent explanation for Knox's and Sollecito's numerous lies before and after 5 November 2007. Don't worry, nobody else has either.

Sollecito claimed that Knox left his apartment at about 9.00pm on the night of the murder and didn't return until about 1.00am.

Why do you think he made this claim?

Why won't Sollecito corroborate Knox's alibi?

Thanks in advance.

Michael said...

S wrote:

"Stacy, Michael is a major presence on a message board website called peugiamurderfile. I believe he's the creator of that site,"

Correct.

You wrote:

"insisting there are bloody footprints, that there's blood in Filomena's room,"


I insist it because they are and there is. The luminonl, crime scene context, fact that some of these samples have human DNA, the volume of available blood, the visible bloody bare footprint on the bath mat combined with the fact that the defence (or yourselves) have not been able to even suggest another plausible substance it may be that reacted with the luminol, much less evidence one makes it reasonable to conclude that it was indeed blood. And as such, this was also the conclusion of both the pre-trial and trial courts.



You wrote:

"their refusal to acknowledge that the experts have said that ordinary kitchen knife found in Rafaelle's apartment didn't cause Meredith's wounds"

Ordinary? Does a knife have to be 'extraordinary' then to be considered a murder weapon? Only 'special' knives are used in murders? The 'experts', whom you mention testified for the defence, so they're doing their job. Whilst the kitchen knife is not a match for one of the larger wounds, it is a match for the fatal wound. It is the court's conclusion that this therefore was the murder weapon and that more then one knife, at least two, where used in the crime. The other wound is a match for Sollecito's pocket knife. The evidence supports this conclusion.

halides1 said...

Michael,

Your analysis with respect to the blood fails to take into account the fact that there are about 800 red blood cells for every white blood cell. TMB detects the hemoglobin in red blood cells, but only white blood cells have DNA.

There are extra alleles in Sample 177 that do not belong to Knox or Kercher. Based upon present information, there is no way to say whose DNA it is.

You are ignoring the way that the forensic police scrubbed the stains. You are also ignoring Stefanoni's testimony on how infrequently she changed gloves.

Anonymous said...

@S.wrote: 'the case against Amanda is all sound and fury. No substance.'

Wow! There are even liars out there who claim that Knox was found guilty by a unanimous jury following a very public trial in a European Union democracy. Can you believe that? Nor me - not even in my wildest imagination! And there's nothing racist about thinking that the Italian legal system is run by morons because they didn't simply stick the black men in prison......Is there?

halides1 said...

Michael,

If the luminol-positive footprints contained Meredith's blood, then why was Meredith's DNA not found in all of them? All of the luminol work was done on December 18. Therefore, how can one ignore the possibility that the nonforensic police brought Meredith's or Amanda's biological traces with them in the intervening weeks?

Michael said...

S Wrote:

"Michael, are you seriously going to deny that false confessions occur? Because if you are, that tells me and any rational reader all we need to know about your credibility."


I'm not denying false confessions occur, I never have. But I would say, just because false confessions may have occurred in the past, that in and of itself is not evidence that it did in this case. I have seen no evidence for it. Indeed, quite the opposite. It wasn't a confession in any case for a start, since she didn't confessed to murder, she instead falsely accused Patrick Lumumba of it, so it was a 'false accusation'. She made her accusation of Patrick inside one hour and forty five minutes, in a session of questioning that began informally in the waiting room., She then later, at her own request under pressure from nobody, insisted on being heard again and repeated the accusation but this time in more detail, to Prosecutor Mignini. Not content with that, later alone in her cell she demanded pen and paper and wrote how she stood by what she had said about Patrick the previous night. She added some waffle about it all seeming like a dream, which was a classic hedging, since she knew she had lied through her teeth and what she had said might have gotten her into trouble. Further, Knox does not match the profile of the type of individual that gives false confessions. Further, a mountain of evidence unearthed during the investigation proved she was indeed directly involved in the murder. So, you can claim it was a false confession. You can also pull my other leg, as it has bells on.

Michael said...

S Wrote:

"Oh, and please point me to the DNA experts who are saying the DNA was mixed prior to being deposited. Because in my numerous cases dealing with mixed profile samples, I have never heard an expert say that there was any way to tell how two profiles became mixed."

Read the Massei Report.


"And to try to claim that the Narducci case wasn't part and parcel of the Monster of Florence case is just silly. The only reason anyone ever thought the rather garden-variety Narducci suicide could ever have been more was because of the ludicrous MoF conspiracy theory."

It was a completely separate case, handled by a completely separate jurisdiction with completely different personnel. As for their theories on what had taken place, I would suggest that was based on evidence they had uncovered during their investigation. Since I have not read the evidence file, I do not see how I or you can possibly pass judgement on whether their theories had any basis in truth or not.


You wrote:

"It is unfortunate that he happens to be black and so his guilt of rape and murder feeds into racist stereotypes. But that's no reason to go out and invent a wild, unsubstantiated theory that two white kids were also involved."


And just because a black man has been tried and found guilty of the crime it is no reason to say he did it all alone and the 'white kids' are obviously innocent. You see, it goes both ways, doesn't it?


You wrote:

"At least we agree that Carlizzi was a kook, but come on, Mignini got busted quoting her word for word in the Spezi circus. Will you also, pleas, agree that Spezi should never have been arrested, charged, prosecuted, whatever the correct word is?"


Where is the text of this? I've never seen it.

Why would I agree Spezi should never have been arrested? Do you even know WHY he was arrested? You don't put it in your blog post, so I'll assume you don't. Mario Spezi and Douglas Preston were caught via a phone tap discussing planting evidence at the crime scenes of a murder investigation that was still ongoing. The purpose, it turns out, was so that the crime scenes would reflected support the theory they were planning on putting in their book. This is the same book you use as your Bible for understanding the MoF case by the way, so I'd go over it with a geiger counter were I you. So, were I heading a murder investigation and uncovered evidence that that a couple of idiots were planting evidence at the crime scenes, would I arrest them? You're damn tooting! And let me see what charges that may involve...tampering with evidence and perverting the course of justice at best...and at worst aiding and abetting a murderer, which under Italian law makes you equally guilty of the murders themselves. I think they can consider themselves very very lucky.

S said...

Because the testing didn't definitively rule out that the luminol reactions were blood, boom, it was blood.

Because one person says one of the knife wounds is "compatible with" the kitchen knife, boom, it's the murder weapon! (never mind that other experts say no, it isn't)

Don't you see what you're doing here? In child sex cases here, our examining nurses often don't find any physical injury. So what do they say? They say that proves it happened because there's almost always no physical injury! You're making the same arguments and it's silly.

False confessions and false implications of others are closely related, as I would have hoped you could understand. It's unfortunate that Amanda did crack like that, but it's quite understandable psychologically. Once you take off your Amanda is evil blinders.

It is unfortunate but true that people get convicted in situations like this, as I have more than once compared this case to the West Memphis Three and the daycare cases. I have personally witnessed trials where I came away wondering how any rational person could have found the defendant guilty, let alone 12. But it happens. We don't do ourselves or our systems of justice any favors when we refuse to acknowledge that investigations can go awry, innocent people can get caught up in it, and juries make mistakes.

And, Harry, I am quite certain that people have attempted to explain Amanda's and Rafaelle's statements to you but that you have simply refused to consider those explanations. I'm really not interested in wasting my time on it with you.

Michael said...

S Wrote:

"Rudy as s lone killer makes so much more sense."

That's not what the crime scene evidence says. That's not what the witness testimony says. That's not what the computer and phone records says. That's not what all the lies of Knox and Sollecito say. This is why they were found guilty in a unanimous verdict by eight judges after an eleven month long trial. And this is why I agree with the verdict.

Actually in fact, it's not even what the defence says. Right now they are busy preparing to present jailbird witnesses who will testify that the murder was committed by multiple individuals and in two cases, that Rudy Guede wasn't even one of them. So much for the 'lone wolf'.

S said...

If there's a phone tap demonstrating that Spezi and Preston were plotting to plant evidence, why was the case against Spezi dropped? How about because there was no such evidence. And the whole Narducci murder theory is beyond ludicrous. Narducci committed suicide and 17 years later, someone decided it was a homicide involving not one but two body swaps. It doesn't pass the laugh test.

I have read the Massei report. As I have said, I find it to be full of speculation, assumption, and precious little logic. I just don't understand why you are so passionately defending this conviction. What's your dog in this fight? Mine is that I don't like to see wrongful convictions, i don't like to see criminal trials treated as a media circus, and I really, really can't stand illogical arguments and misrepresentations of evidence and forensic sciences.

Michael said...

S Wrote:


"Because the testing didn't definitively rule out that the luminol reactions were blood, boom, it was blood."

You are being disingenuous here. In my post, I provided specific reasons (multiple) which combined TOGETHER were made it reasonable to conclude that it was blood. This is evidence. The defence therefore then need to counter that evidence. They were unable to provide a viable counter. It is not enough to use a defence of "Oh, well it may have been something else". You actually have to provide couunter evidence or at least a viable counter suggestion of what it may have been if it was not blood, one that is 'reasonable'. The defence chose to volunteer that it may have been bleach. Despite the fact that CSI's can can detect the difference between blood and bleach luminol reactions, it could be demonstrated that it certainly wasn't bleach as the housemates testified there was no bleach in the house and they never used products that contained bleach as policy. If that wasn't enough, the final nail in the coffin is the fact that bleach dissipates in about 24 hours. Luminol testing wasn't performed until over two weeks later. The defence had no more explanations to offer. Neither does anyone else, apparently. Therefore, the conclusion that it was blood stands.

Michael said...

S Wrote:

"If there's a phone tap demonstrating that Spezi and Preston were plotting to plant evidence, why was the case against Spezi dropped?"

Because they were brought in before they actually got around to doing the planting?

Michael said...

S Wrote:

"What's your dog in this fight?"

The truth.

halides1 said...

Michael,

Luminol is a presumptive test. When a presumptive test is positive but a confirmatory test is negative, the FBI says words to the effect "The presence of blood could not be confirmed." In this case there wasn't even a confirmatory test run. The prosecution has to prove it was blood; the defense does not have to prove it was not blood.

You have failed to address the reasons we have offered to doubt that the luminol-positive substance was blood (lack of being positive by TMB in some cases; lack of Meredith's DNA in some cases). Moreover, you have failed to address the fact that the nonforensic police would not observe the same protocols as the forensic police in the weeks leading up to the luminol testing.

halides1 said...

Harry Rag,
You wrote, "You haven't provided a plausible innocent explanation for Knox's and Sollecito's numerous lies before and after 5 November 2007." Raffaele probably lied about pricking Meredith with the knife. Done.

Michael said...

halides1 wrote:

"Luminol is a presumptive test. When a presumptive test is positive but a confirmatory test is negative, the FBI says words to the effect "The presence of blood could not be confirmed." In this case there wasn't even a confirmatory test run. The prosecution has to prove it was blood; the defense does not have to prove it was not blood."


That's the FBI, not a court. The purpose of a court is to arrive at truth. It is not only blood tests that can be used to determine the presence of blood, but also other supportive evidence. It is a court's job to decide whether all the evidence together supports the conclusion that blood is presence. In this case, they considered that it did especially as the defence counter arguments were flawed. This idea that a confirmatory blood test and only a confirmatory blood test can be used to detect the presence of blood and without it a court must reject all other evidence that determines it's blood and state that it is not blood, is false and naive. A court is not a science lab.

Michael said...

halides1 wrote:

"Raffaele probably lied about pricking Meredith with the knife. Done."

That's an 'explanation'?

Raffaele told far more lies then that I might add.

Michael said...

halides1 wrote:

"You have failed to address the reasons we have offered to doubt that the luminol-positive substance was blood (lack of being positive by TMB in some cases; lack of Meredith's DNA in some cases). Moreover, you have failed to address the fact that the nonforensic police would not observe the same protocols as the forensic police in the weeks leading up to the luminol testing."


Because the samples were 'trace', LCN levels only and had been subjected to luminol and the atmosphere, not to mention people trampling all over them. Red blood cells make up nearly all blood cells and red blood cells don't contain DNA. You therefore need a sample of a minimum size to render a profile. Some of the traces did not meet that minimum size requirement. I've already addressed the TMB issue. But will repeat what I've repeated elsewhere. TMB testing cannot be used to confirm or exclude the presence of blood. Yummmi wrote a very detailed piece explaining all of this I recall.

It doesn't matter what the non-forensic police did in the weeks leading up to the luminol testing, since they didn't enter the cottage. The crime scene was sealed in between visits by the forensic police.

Anonymous said...

Michael,

You just make shit up, and attack others for supposed "ignorance". In your very first "point", you said:

"1. You claimed the prosecutor charged Mario Spezi. This is false. Italian prosecutors don't have the power to charge anyone. Only an Italian court judge can charge an individual. In and of itself, this mistake isn't important. However, it does expose your ignorance on the most basic level of how the Italian system works and that is quite important when trying to understand Italian case and even more so if you are going to publicly level all manner of accusations against it and the individuals involved."

The Euro-Justice web site, (http://www.euro-justice.com/member_states/italy/country_report/4514/) disagrees with your legal advice.

"Chapter III
The Role of the Public Prosecutor in Court

The charges raised by the prosecutor against the accused are screened by a single judge at the preliminary hearing in order to deem whether there is enough evidence to support the prosecution at trial....The prosecutor could also charge an additional offence if evidence of such crime arises during the trial proceedings."

You might also want to look at the Wikipedia entry summarizing the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.

There is no reason to read any of the rest of your drivel.

-RD

Anonymous said...

Very interesting development just breaking in Italy that five criminals, including a mobster, are being allowed to testify on behalf of Knox. Many don't even believe that Guede was involved!! Others will testify that a contract was put out on Meredith because of a drugs debt (what an unbelievably sick theory that is).

Now if that's where Knox's defense is at right now, we should be even more convinced that she's guilty. Has the defense gone mad? Do those of you who think Knox is 'completely innocent' think these evil men are the kind who should be testifying on her behalf? What is going on?

People can blog away for ever about how much faith they have in college kids from good families, but in the end the rational legal process convicted them of murder, and will also decide Knox's two automatic appeals.

People leaving comments on this blog site seem to think it's just Italians who believe Knox should be punished for what she did, but there are plenty of others.

And no, this isn't because they're 'haters' or 'guilters', or even because they dislike Knox or her family (why would they? Why would the Italians? She always comes across as a very average, relaxed college kid - hardly the kind of person people pick on, let alone frame with a 'no evidence' crime).

It's because the wicked lies she told early on made no sense at all, because it's clear that the Italian authorities treated her with utmost respect at all times, and because a near year-long, well publicised court case proved beyond doubt that she and her two co-accused collectively murdered Meredith Kercher.

Michael said...

S Wrote:

"I have read the Massei report. As I have said, I find it to be full of speculation, assumption, and precious little logic. I just don't understand why you are so passionately defending this conviction."


In contrast, I find it to be meticulous, highly factual and very logical.

I also fail to see how anyone can read the evidence contained therein of a staged break-in and claim that the staged break-in to be 'fantasy' . Perhaps you can provide arguments of why that evidence is flawed and why it is so clear the break-in wasn't staged?

Michael said...

Anonumous wrote:

"You might also want to look at the Wikipedia entry summarizing the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure."

I've read it all. And I say again, a prosecutor cannot charge. The quote you render is poorly worded, that's all it is. If a prosecutor needs to file a charge during a trial, it must be filed to the judge and then only the judge can decide if the defendant is to be charged. Italian judges cannot charge people, they don't have the power, period

Michael said...

Correction to a typo. I wrote:

"Italian judges cannot charge people, they don't have the power, period"

That should read 'prosecutors' of course, not 'judges'.

Anonymous said...

Michael,

Your inability to comprehend the Wikipedia entry speaks volumes.

"When a Pubblico Ministero or a member of Polizia Giudiziaria becomes aware of the fact that a crime was committed, he must begin his investigation: in Italy, the public prosecutor has the duty to initiate criminal proceedings."

The "Pubblico Ministero" is the prosecutor.

Also, "When the preliminary investigations are over, if the Pubblico Ministero thinks that the evidence he gathered could not justify a conviction, he must archiviare the notitia criminis (he must drop the charges)."

-RD

Alex said...

Isn't it time to stop pussyfooting around Harry Rag and expose him for who he really is? The Kink's 'Fag' was just a ruse to throw folks off the scent and it hasn't worked. We know who you are you pain in the neck, why not get up to date or get out of it while you still have some semblance of honor and dignity left.

Alex.

Michael said...

Anon Wrote:

"Your inability to comprehend the Wikipedia entry speaks volumes."


I'm afraid it's your comprehension that's off. "initiate criminal proceedings" is what it says, it is not 'charging'. Case in point, Mignini initiated criminal proceedings against Knox, yet Knox was not 'charged' until almost a year later, by Judge Micheli in the pre-trial.

In regard to 'initiating criminal proceedings', we use the term 'opening a file'. The PM opens a file against the individual and this has to be presented to a court judge. The court judge then decides if the evidence indeed criminal articles have been broken and he then charges, or does not charge accordingly.

I say again, an Italian prosecutor cannot charge a person (neither can the police), only a court judge can do that.

halides1 said...

Michael,

The explanation for Raffaele's statement about the knife is obvious: He was told that the knife had Meredith's DNA (it actually didn't until it was contaminated), and he probably told a lie to try to explain the impossible. Every machine-generated list of his or Amanda's supposed lies is the moral equivalent of a lie because what little bit of truth such a list contains has been twisted beyond recognition.

Michael said...

Anon Wrote:

"Also, "When the preliminary investigations are over, if the Pubblico Ministero thinks that the evidence he gathered could not justify a conviction, he must archiviare the notitia criminis (he must drop the charges)." "


No, it is not 'charges'. There are no charges 'to' drop. Here's how it works. If a prosecutor has reason to believe articles of the penal code have been broken, he must 'open a file' and perform an investigation. During the course of the investigation, it may also be a requirement to make the individual a formal suspect or even arrest them, depending on the severity of the offences they are being investigated for and other circumstances. A prosecutor then has a year to complete his investigation, although it is quite common to be completed sooner, and it is also possible for a prosecutor to request a year extension (which must be made to a court judge). At the end of the investigation, the prosecutor must decide whether he has adequate evidence to file and if not, then them it's archived. If he files, the file then goes before a judge who then decides on the basis of the evidence if it then meets the criteria to charge and if so, the suspect is charged, if not, the file is archived.

A suspect cannot be charged until after the investigation is complete, they are never (cannot be) charged before or during the investigation. Therefore, once the investigation is complete there are no charges to 'drop' because none have been made yet and there won't be until there has been a pre-trial, do you understand?

I would also add, wikipedia is hardly the best primary source to use.

Michael said...

halides1 wrote:

"The explanation for Raffaele's statement about the knife is obvious: He was told that the knife had Meredith's DNA (it actually didn't until it was contaminated), and he probably told a lie to try to explain the impossible. Every machine-generated list of his or Amanda's supposed lies is the moral equivalent of a lie because what little bit of truth such a list contains has been twisted beyond recognition."


It sounds like an excuse to me, a desperate excuse. He didn't tell lies make excuses for other evidence. I don't buy you excuse. You see I might have, were it only the one lie. The problem is, it's the multiple lies...like the ones he told the police in regard to his alibi. An innocent person does not need to tell so many lies. I will also add, since telling all those lies, Raffaele has remained silent and has refused to provide the truth to replace those lies. Again, those are not the actions of an innocent person.

This is a guy who claimed he was on his computer doing course work, wastching 'Amelie', eating dinner, speaking to his father on the phone and cleaning up a leak under his sink. These are all lies (sure, he did have dinner, he did speak to his father on the phone and he did watch Amelie and he 'may' have cleaned up a leak under his sink, but these things ALL happened way before 9 pm, instead of throughout the course of the night until 1 am as he had claimed). He claimed he didn't awake the next morning until about 11 am. His phone, computer and the phone calls he answered from his father prove him a liar on that one.

Oh, and don'y even get me started about the tales of attempting to break down Meredith's door in a panic!

And the pricking Meredith with the knife? That's not a small lie, that's not a little white lie...he invented a WHOLE story to try and cover for that one.

The only good news for Raffaele? His father and his lawyers managed to shut him up after that point so he wouldn't tell any more and get himself even deeper. Too late.

Harry Rag said...

@halides1,

The defence experts were unable to prove there had been any contamination at the trial. Unless contamination has been proved, it doesn't exist.

Sollecito admitted that he had lied to the police and said that Knox had asked him to lie for her. Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox's alibi at the trial.

Why won't Sollecito corroborate Knox's alibi?

Harry Rag said...

@Alex,

You sound like an immature teenager, although you are probably a middle-aged white knight who wants to rescue Amanda Knox from the dastardly Italians.

Knox and Sollecito are sadistic sex killers on a par with Myra Hindley and Ian Brady, and Fred and Rosemary West. They will lose their appeals and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

Anonymous said...

Michael,

Thank you for your response, and I certainly do not claim to be an expert on Italian Criminal Procedure.

So far, you suggest I believe you because the Euro-Justice "is poorly worded" and "wikipedia is hardly the best primary source to use."

Unfortunately, I've read enough of your posts that I trust wikipedia a lot further than I trust you.

According to "Criminal procedure and public prosecution reform in Italy: a flash back" authored by Marco Fabri, Senior Ressearcher - Research Institute on Judicial Systems, Naitonal Research Counsil, Bologna, Italy,

"According to the Italian Constitution, the prosecutor must file a criminal complaint if there are reasons to suppose that a crime has been committed."

I would also note that Wikipedia defines a criminal charge as "a formal accusation made by a governmental authority asserting that somebody has committed a crime."

Are you suggesting that the prosecutor (who is, in Italy, a part of the Judiciary) filing a criminal complaint does not constitute a formal accusation made by a governmental authority asserting that somebody has committed a crime?


The paper does note that "the prosecutor's decision to dismiss a case, as well as to send someone to jail for pretrial detention.... has to be checked by the preliminary investigation judge (giudice per le indagini preliminari)."

But goes on to say, "In practice, these checks by a judge are very often legal formalities, which are easy to overcome. Indeed, judicial control is exercised mainly on the evidence that the prosecutor is going to show."

Is Senior Researcher Marco Fabri incorrect in his assertion that the Italian Constitution requires the prosecutor to file a criminal complaint?

-RD

Michael said...

Anon Wroye:

"According to "Criminal procedure and public prosecution reform in Italy: a flash back" authored by Marco Fabri, Senior Ressearcher - Research Institute on Judicial Systems, Naitonal Research Counsil, Bologna, Italy,

"According to the Italian Constitution, the prosecutor must file a criminal complaint if there are reasons to suppose that a crime has been committed." "


A 'criminal complaint' is not 'charge', they are two completely different things. WHY do you think it is that these quotes you keep putting up keep going out of their way yo using the actual word 'charge' if they actually mean 'charge' instead using multiple words like 'criminal complaint'? The reason is because they don't mean 'charge'. 'Charge' means to refer someone to trial, a prosecutor CAN NOT do that, only a pre-trial and the ruling of a court judge can do that.

In legal terms something is only 'formal' when it has been formalised. It requires a court judge to formalise. A prosecutor can only file (which is a submission, a request). It's semantics in terms of our understanding of the concept, but very important in terms of the actual legal system. A charge is formal and therefore it can only exist if it's formalised.

Complaint - charge

Two completely different things.

Michael said...

Harry Rag wrote:

"Why won't Sollecito corroborate Knox's alibi?"

Hi Harry :) A couple of months or so before the appeal, Sollecito's lawyers declared to the media that Sollecito would break his silence and take the stand in the appeal. I really doubt that will happen, but I hope it will. Let's see.


Just to correct you on one misfact in one of your earlier posts in this section. There were no blond hairs in Meredith's hand. There were no hairs at all. There was a textile fibre, possibly wool, but no hair. I know where you got the blond hair thing from, but it isn't correct. My guess is it was a translation mistake. I remember in the early days of the case the media was going on about the victim's tampon and there was DNA on it. It greatly added to the confusion. Everyone thought the victim was raped whilst she was wearing a tampon. Of course, the Italian word for swab (as in DNA swab) is 'tampone' and referred only to the DNA swab that was taken. Even when that was cleared up, I remember people were still arriving on the case months later saying the victim was raped whilst wearing a tampon and even some newspapers were still saying so. 'Lost in translation' is a factor...and when it happens it pervades.

Anonymous said...

Michael,

You are making up your own definitions. That is why I put the conventional definition of "criminal charge" in my post.

As typical for you, you are playing a symantics game. You are free to make up your own definitions, but you shouldn't be calling othe people "ignorant" because they don't know your personal dictionary.

-RD

Michael said...

Anon wrote:

"But goes on to say, "In practice, these checks by a judge are very often legal formalities, which are easy to overcome. Indeed, judicial control is exercised mainly on the evidence that the prosecutor is going to show." "

They are not "legal formalities". In Knox and Sollecito's case, their pre-trial (which ended in their being charged) lasted over a month! That can hardly be referred to as a 'formality'.

S said...

Michael, in my state the complaint is the charging document. When the complaint has been filed, you have been charged. The case then goes to the judge for a little mini-trial where the judge gets to decide whether there is probable cause for the case to go to trial. The standard of proof at prelim is significantly lower than the standard of proof at trial.

This sounds like the system you're describing. Now I'm curious to find out what the Italian burden of proof is at that pre-trial and what it is at trial.

Michael said...

Anon wrote:

"You are making up your own definitions. That is why I put the conventional definition of "criminal charge" in my post."

You put up a dictionary definition, not a legal definition (those are in law books) and certainly not an Italian one.

And let me enlighten you a little. Since legal systems differ from country to country, not just in detail, but fundamentally (for example, common law v civil law...or martial law, sharia law etc,) there is no such thing as a 'conventional definition' that can be applied across systems.

Harry Rag said...

Hi Michael,

I didn't claim that there were any blonde hairs in Meredith's hand. I reposted a comment from another poster who was basing his claim on an extract from Angel Face.

Anonymous said...

Michael,

Still playing semantics?

Black's Law Dictionary defines "charge" as "A formal accusation of an offense as a prelimnary step to prosecution...Also termed criminal charge."


-RD

halides1 said...

Harry Rag,

You and The Machine are wrong about DNA contamination. It is the job of the prosecution to run negative controls (they can also run substrate controls). They should then report all of these controls to the defense and also hand over the electronic data files. One cannot be certain that negative controls were even performed, because the prosecution never gave the defense what they repeatedly asked for, electronic data files, machine logs, and standard operating procedures. Good labs also have contamination logs. With the EDFs in hand, the defense can then examine them to verify whether or not contamination has occurred. You are asking the defense to prove contamination when they do not have access to the files that might show whether or not it occurred, an obvious inconsistence.

Moreover, it is not always possible to know the exact moment at which contamimation occurs, as Dr. Donald Riley pointed out in an incisive article. However, at least two facts suggest a reasonable likelihood of contamination with respect to the knife profile. One is that there was no blood (Michael’s convoluted explanation of how this could happen is almost 180 degrees opposite to his argument with respect to luminol and DNA). Two is that this is low template number DNA, and contamination is more likely in this region, a point to which Dr. Sarah Gino alluded. The presence of starch on the knife means that if it were the murder weapon, it would have had to have been cleaned of blood, then used to cut potatoes or something else with starch, and yet still retained DNA. To imagine that Meredith’s DNA would remain present under these circumstances requires magical thinking.

Finally, in contrast to The Machine’s rhetorical question elsewhere, there are a number of well-studied cases of DNA contamination. Two of the clearest come from Australia, the Jaidyn Leskie case and the Farah Jama case. Gregory Turner is another example.

Michael said...

S wrote:

"Michael, in my state the complaint is the charging document. When the complaint has been filed, you have been charged."

It doesn't work that way in Italy. Why do you think it is, that one of the primary FOA screams we've been hearing ...forever, it seems, is that Knox had to spend whole a year in jail before she was even charged (how barbaric!)?

Are you now arguing along with Anon, that this FOA talking point is not the case?

So, which is it...was Knox charged right away, or did she spend a year in jail without charge?

Your call.

Michael said...

Halides1 wrote:

"Finally, in contrast to The Machine’s rhetorical question elsewhere, there are a number of well-studied cases of DNA contamination. Two of the clearest come from Australia, the Jaidyn Leskie case and the Farah Jama case. Gregory Turner is another example.£

This is true. Bit the contamination argument can be used to rule out all DNA evidence, since contamination is always 'possible' (including in the case of Rudy Guede). In other words, your argument stands as a blanket argument against DNA being used in any prosecution. Since contamination is always 'possible', shouldn't we therefore ban it?

Either DNA is valid evidence, or it isn't. But, you need to decide, you can't be applying it selectively as you have in this case, which amounts to 'the DNA against the people we don't like is all good and the DNA against the people we do like is...well, DNA is quite dodgy, it shouldn't be allowed, because DNA can get contaminated you know and people can plant it and...'

Come on!

Anonymous said...

Sorry Michael,

That's called misdirection.

You came into the discussion claiming "factual errors so numerous I don't know where to begin." Your very first "example" attempted to discredit our host for "ignorance on the most basic level" for mentioning that the prosecutor charged Spezi.

You have shown that the ignorance was yours. You have no credibility.

-RD

halides1 said...

Michael,

Not every DNA profile is done under questionable low template conditions, as the knife was. Not every DNA profile is a mixture, as the bra clasp is. Not every DNA profile is collected when the item in question has been moved and dirtied after the crime, as the bra clasp was. These are just some of the reasons why the evidence in this case is poorer than in some other cases.

If you threw out all of the DNA evidence in this case, there is still evidence of Guede in the room. His shoeprints and fingerprint set in blood are enough to convict him, IMO.

Michael said...

Anon wrote:

"You came into the discussion claiming "factual errors so numerous I don't know where to begin." Your very first "example" attempted to discredit our host for "ignorance on the most basic level" for mentioning that the prosecutor charged Spezi."

Well, it is true that he did not. Look, you can't have it both ways...you cannot be declaring that on the one hand, the prosecutor is charging all sorts of people and then on the other saying he's locking them up without charge. Which is it? I don't see the 'misdirection', this is a pretty fundamental question...

'What' talking point are you going with?

S said...

Ok, Michael, if DNA is either valid or not, how do you respond to the fact that none of those bare footprints detected by luminol had Meredith's DNA?

Those footprints tested negative for blood. They also tested negative for Meredith's DNA. So how do you STILL think you can get away with insisting it's a fact that Amanda left a trail of footprints in Meredith's blood?

Harry Rag said...

@halides1,

Are you sure Guede left a fingerprint in Meredith's room?

Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp was identified by two separate DNA tests. Professor Torricelli told the court that the significant amount of Sollecito’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp meant that it was unlikely that it was left by contamination.

Bearing in mind that DNA doesn't fly, how do you think an abundant amount of Sollecito's DNA got onto Meredith's bra clasp?

Thanks in advance.

Michael said...

halides1 wrote:

"Not every DNA profile is done under questionable low template conditions, as the knife was."

Oh, I see, we're going to move the goal posts a little.

But...forgive me, but in an earlier post you stated there was no DNA on the knife when it was found. When then did it arrive on the knife...in transit? In the lab? How did that occur?

Let me reiterate, contamination is ALWAYS possible, not only under your limited (selective) perimeters. If that's the basis of your argument, then all DNA must be ruled inadmissible. It's no good to stammer 'but...bit, she did it this way under the machine and we don't like that way'.

All required and reasonable actions to prevent contamination were taken. No evidence to the contrary has ever been provided. That's good enough for me. It should be for you. Could have, might have, maybe did, it's possible...not good enough. You need more than that yo take out evidence.

Michael said...

Harry Rag wrote:

"Hi Michael,

I didn't claim that there were any blonde hairs in Meredith's hand. I reposted a comment from another poster who was basing his claim on an extract from Angel Face."

My mistake Harry!

halides1 said...

MIchael,

You wrote, "'Not every DNA profile is done under questionable low template conditions, as the knife was.'

Oh, I see, we're going to move the goal posts a little.

But...forgive me, but in an earlier post you stated there was no DNA on the knife when it was found. When then did it arrive on the knife...in transit? In the lab? How did that occur?"

No, I am not moving the goalpost. I was merely refuting your attempt to lump all DNA evidence together. Some evidence is of higher quality than other evidence.

It is my opinion that contamination is the best explanation for the result, but secondary transfer cannot be ruled out. The second person to handle the knife had just come from the girls' flat; therefore, he could have contaminated the sample. However, contamination in the lab is also a possibility, inasmuch as it had many samples that contained Meredith's DNA. Stefanoni's refusal to turn over forensic information flies in the face of good scientific practice and also crippled the defense's ability to rebut it. She should have turned over electronic data files containing the negative controls a long time ago.

Michael said...

S wrote:

"Ok, Michael, if DNA is either valid or not, how do you respond to the fact that none of those bare footprints detected by luminol had Meredith's DNA?"


I did so, in an earlier post...perhaps you passed it by.

You wrote:

"Those footprints tested negative for blood. They also tested negative for Meredith's DNA. So how do you STILL think you can get away with insisting it's a fact that Amanda left a trail of footprints in Meredith's blood?"

Not true. One test was positive for blood, another was negative. That's not quite the same as saying 'they tested negative for blood'. And I dealt with this issue with another poster earlier, so I refer you to those posts. I don't think repeating ourselves is productive.

Harry Rag said...

@halides1,

You wrote the following:

"Moreover, Harry Rag's explanation fails to account for why none of Meredith's DNA was found in the footprints. Nor does he account for why there are only a few of them and all right feet."

You need to get your facts straight. Meredith's DNA was found in the luminol footprint in the corridor and in the luminol stain in Filomena's room.

halides1 said...

Harry Rag,
Rudi's fingerprint was on the pillowcase. What are you talking about? Sollecito's DNA was on the borderline of being in the low template range, hardly "significant" or "abundant." Therefore, the premise of your question is wrong. Besides, the amount of DNA that is recovered is not a rock-solid indicator of primary versus secondary transfer.

S said...

Michael, we finally agree on something! Because responding to you and Harry and the others in your merry little band is not productive.

The tide has turned, folks, and you better get yourselves prepared for the fact that Amanda and Rafaelle's convictions will be reversed. The powers that be in Italy are most likely just trying to figure out how to get out of it without all facing criminal prosecution themselves.

Harry Rag said...

@halides,

Would you care to support your assertion that Guede left a fingerprint on the pillowcase with some proof?

Thanks in advance.

S said...

By the by, Michael, I said none of the BARE prints had Meredith's DNA. The spot in Filomena's room isn't a footprint and the one in the hallway isn't a bare foot. Precision, dude.

halides1 said...

Harry,

The two spots in Filomena’s room were amorphous, not footprints. One of them has alleles not belonging to either Meredith or Amanda. How do you account for that?
In the corridor only sample 183, which was a shoeprint, had Meredith’s and Amanda’s DNA. Samples 181, 182, and 184, which were footprints, did not generate DNA profiles.

Michael said...

Anon A.K.A RD wrote:

"Michael,

Still playing semantics?

Black's Law Dictionary defines "charge" as "A formal accusation of an offense as a prelimnary step to prosecution...Also termed criminal charge." £

Black's law applies to civil law, doesn't it?

Under law, in Italy, an accusation isn't formal until it's been formalised. Only a court judge can formalise an accusation and that is called a 'charge'

I don't know how many ways I can repeat or explain this. Either you accept it, or you don't.

But along the way, neither you nor S has answered my question. Was Knox charged in the first 72 hours following her arrest, or was she not charged for a full year per the FOA claim and, relentless talking point? It's a simple question.

Michael said...

S wrote:

"By the by, Michael, I said none of the BARE prints had Meredith's DNA. The spot in Filomena's room isn't a footprint and the one in the hallway isn't a bare foot. Precision, dude."

Dude?

Michael said...

S weote:

"The tide has turned, folks, and you better get yourselves prepared for the fact that Amanda and Rafaelle's convictions will be reversed. The powers that be in Italy are most likely just trying to figure out how to get out of it without all facing criminal prosecution themselves."


If you say so. I'm certainly not going to be the one that's going to volunteer to tell you there's no Santa Claus. Whatever keeps you happy...while it lasts.

S said...

Ok, RD, Halides, and any other rational people. We've tried to respond to these trolls enough. It's pointless. I have a real life and am getting a little annoyed by the constant e-mails. So, since Michael and Harry and their buddies will argue no matter what we say, we really just need to stop.

We have refuted them enough. Rational people can research the case for themselves and have now been exposed to plenty of opinions on both sides. But clearly Michael and Harry are not interested in being rational as they cling to "Amanda magically left Meredith's bloody footprints all over the hall even though those prints didn't test positive for blood or Meredith's DNA, all while managing to leave exactly none of her DNA in the room where the murder occurred" theory.

halides1 said...

Harry Rag,

Nick Squires mentions a bloody fingerprint, "He became a suspect in the murder two weeks after Miss Kercher's body was found, when DNA tests on a bloody fingerprint and on samples taken from the body were found to match samples which police already had on file following his earlier arrests."

TJfMK on 14 May 2010 wrote, "On 15 November the investigators identify the finger print on the pillow as belonging to Rudy Guede."

You were wrong about the amount of Sollecito's DNA, and you are wasting my time with the fingerprint. Is this the best you've got?

halides1 said...

S,

I agree. Michael said one thing about blood and TMB and almost the exact opposite with respect to blood and luminol. It is just special pleading, and I have had enough for one evening.

Michael said...

S weote:

"Ok, RD, Halides, and any other rational people. We've tried to respond to these trolls enough."


Whilst we're on that subject, was Knox's confession 'beaten' out of her?

I'm asking this very simple question in the faint hope I may get an answer, after all my previous question asked several times has not received one. I'll bet good money it never will. If you care about truth, then why not make the attempt? Question - answer.

halides1 said...

Michael,

How about answering some of the ones that I posed to you and to Harry?

Michael said...

halides1 wrote:

"I agree. Michael said one thing about blood and TMB and almost the exact opposite with respect to blood and luminol. It is just special pleading, and I have had enough for one evening."

Hardly. I've never claimed luminol to be a confirmation test. You're deliberately avoiding all my other points, disingenuously compressing them into being all about luminol!

Some good faith halides1, please!

MJichael said...

halides1 weote:

"How about answering some of the ones that I posed to you and to Harry?"

I DID. Acknowledging the answers might be nice. tcha!

halides1 said...

Michael,

I never said you claimed that luminol was a confirmatory test. Some good faith from you would be appreciated. What I meant was that you have argued in effect that luminol is more sensitive than DNA profiling but TMB is less sensitive. The difference in sensitivities between luminol and TMB make such a claim problematic.

Harry Rag said...

@halides1 and Sarah,

Meredith's DNA was mixed with Knox's DNA in the bare luminol footprint (L8) attributed to Amanda Knox. It's in the Massei report.

Michael said...

I've still not got an answer...


When...was...Amanda Knox...charged?

It's a very easy question. So who's going to answer...anyone?

This is a very valid question. For well over two years the FOAker camp has been complaining along with media sympathisers, that Knox was held without charge for a year. In this thread, I have been bombarded by anon and S (a legal student no less) who have argued passionately, that the moment a prosecutor investigates anyone, that constitutes as a charge. That would in this case, make it the day of Knox's arrest...the early morning of the 6 Nov, 2007.

So, what is it? Is the claim that Knox was held for a year without charge bunk...or is it true? True...false...easy answer, the longest possible one is only five letters long. Which is it?

S said...

Harry, stain 8 isn't clearly a footprint, so I don't count it as a footprint. Remember how I'm precise like that.

Michael said...

halides1 wrote:

"I never said you claimed that luminol was a confirmatory test. Some good faith from you would be appreciated. What I meant was that you have argued in effect that luminol is more sensitive than DNA profiling but TMB is less sensitive. The difference in sensitivities between luminol and TMB make such a claim problematic."

I didn't say luminol was more sensitive then DNA testing. It is however, more sensitive then LCN FNA testing, wherein it can reveal the presence of blood bit LCN DBA testing can't. TMB is less sensitive then luminol. Where's the bad faith in that?

Harry Rag said...

@halides,

According to Rudy Guede's sentencing report, he was identified by a bloody palm print:

“b) traces attributable to Guede: a palm print in blood found on the pillow case of a pillow lying under the victim’s body – attributed with absolute certainty to the defendant by its correspondence to papillary ridges as well as 16-17 characteristic points equal in shape and position –”

Judge Micheli wrote that Rudy Guede was identified by his bloody palm print on pages 10 and 11 of his report.

Michael said...

S weote:

"Harry, stain 8 isn't clearly a footprint, so I don't count it as a footprint. Remember how I'm precise like that."

Ahh...it's not 'clearly' a footprint.

What constitutes as clearly a footprint by the way?


Shortly I'll remind you of my earlier question 'again', which you're going out of your way to avoid arguing.

S said...

Oh, I hate myself already for getting sucked in, but Michael, I have never said anything about Amanda being held for 1 year before being charged. I cannot answer for all those who did.

Had I commented on it, I would have said regardless of the legal terms used in Italy, it is outrageous that she could expect to spend 1 year in jail before anyone had to decide whether her case was even going to proceed to trial.

As for the spot in Filomena's room, I think I've made it clear that I prefer to be as precise as possible. Some of the spots identified as bare foot spots clearly show toe outlines. The spot in Filomena's room is just a blob. Hence, it is not clearly a footprint. Sheesh, it's really not that hard. Unless you want to obfuscate absolutely everything and argue on every point, which you clearly want to do to no end, which is why I swore I wasn't going to respond anymore. And I really won't! I swear. You are not worth the effort and I'm getting a migraine.

Harry Rag said...

@Sarah,

You wrote:

"Harry, stain 8 isn't clearly a footprint, so I don't count it as a footprint. Remember how I'm precise like that."

Even Chris Mellas admitted that Amanda Knox's footprint was set in Meredith's blood.

You weren't very precise when you claimed that Guede's hair was found in Meredith's room.

BMN said...

I have seen and responded to several of Michael’s posts during the discussion on recent articles of Bruce Fisher that appeared in GroundReport. My impression is that he belongs to the bandwagon which spreads misinformation on this case. He will go to any extent to win arguments, including lying, and hence one has to be cautious in taking him at face value. For example, he was adamant in claiming that Rafaelle’s drawer had just one knife whereas Massei’s report says: “The witness recognized it when shown Exhibit 36 as that same knife (pages 176 and 177, hearing on February 28, 2009). He remembered that in the drawer there were other knives, but he collected what was later indicated as Exhibit 36.”

halides1 said...

According to the manuscript "Arrested Abroad" by Benjamin Sayagh, the two were held in precautionary detention before being formally indicted in October 2008 (see footnotes 88 and 89).

halides1 said...

Harry Rag,

Do you have a citation with respect to what Chris Mellas said? Without reference footprints being taken of all of the flatmates, one should not attribute them to anyone conclusively.

Thanks for the information on the palm print. Will you let TJfMK know that they have it wrong? This debate reminds me of the time that The Machine made a big deal about whether Guede's DNA was in Meredith's purse or on the zip of her purse. I would like to know the relevance of both of these things; otherwise, you and The Machine are just playing Gotcha.

Anonymous said...

Mignini is now clearly looking for an escape route.
In his CNN interview he said
1. that Amanda was not in Meredith's room at the time of the murder.
2. that the women police officers of the Perugian state police were emotional.
3. that he would have preferred the Carabinieri to have been involved instead.
How long before he casts blame on Stefanoni?

The lack of logic and reasoning, and the degree of incompetence and corruption by the Perugian legal establishment is scandalous.

The gullible and malicious morons at PMF/TJMK who have spent 3 years peddling their lies will hopefully face defamation suits.

S said...

"The gullible and malicious morons at PMF/TJMK who have spent 3 years peddling their lies will hopefully face defamation suits."

Wouldn't that be nice? I mean, officially as an American who staunchly defends the First Amendment, I have to express some concern about criminal charges for speech.

But Italy has different rules and from what I have learned about regarding these "guilters" in the past few days, even by US standards, there's quite possibly a valid claim there.

Anonymous said...

This case has highlighted some of the severe problems facing Italy today.

1. the shambolic state of its criminal justice system which has seen only piecemeal reforms since the Mussolini era.
The presumption of innocence is only a recent concept which many do not seem to comprehend.
2. that fascism lives on in the police forces
3. that press freedom is severely curtailed by calunnia/defamation suits.

Last week Berlusconi stated that his country was a police state.

Kaosium said...

Michael said:

I've still not got an answer...
When...was...Amanda Knox...charged?
It's a very easy question. So who's going to answer...anyone?


You don't name a pig you plan to eat! :P

I don't know what to call it, tell me how it works. They file 'investigation papers' or somesuch and a judge gives an order which is how Mignini can claim (and some repeat for him...) that he never charges anyone or starts investigations...or whatever. A year or so later the official 'charges' come down, if the 'investigation' produces enough 'evidence' to support them. That's the theory at least, or as best I can make out.

The byzantine workings of this corrupt system give me a headache. It doesn't matter in the slightest as the prosecutor does whatever he damn well pleases, the judge is just a rubberstamp like the pathetic Matteini that had Amanda held for a year on what amounts to a slick paperback plot with nekkid girls on the cover. That's all the 'evidence' amounted to as well. These preliminary courts pencilwhip everything from what I've seen.

When we're done with this semantic game we can go on to what do you call it when they're found 'guilty' in the trial of the first instance. It's not actually 'convicted' because they're still considered innocent until it goes to the Supreme Court, so new words need to be up so we can all fight over the difference between 'charged' and 'convicted' and I'm sure it will be in Italian so that's more funny-looking words to remember to spell right and put in italics...

I say 'charged' and 'convicted' and we all remember what it actually means without having to go through it all over again! :)

Anonymous said...

Really good article!

From the very beginning of this case I believed that both Amanda and Raffaele were completely innocent of this crime and that Rudy Guede was the sole rapist and murderer of Meredith Kercher.

This was a railroad job from hell.

I hope that Mignini and his henchmen pay for what they intentionally and maliciously did to these two young people.

The people from the True Justice site are just plan evil.

Anonymous said...

@S. wrote: 'We've tried to respond to these trolls enough. It's pointless. I have a real life and am getting a little annoyed by the constant e-mails.'

This absolutely sums up the kind of people who post endlessly about 'their girl' Knox. As long as they can make their wild, made-up assertions to people like them they are happy. They post as if Knox was never actually convicted, and as if their smug, ill-informed view of this case is one which the whole world shares (just read the way S. constantly claims, against all the evidence, that Rudy Guede smashed and climbed through a high window so as to burgle student accommodation. It's pathetic).

Then, when a few people start to question S.'s views about this case, all the while exposing her stereotypical, chauventistic views about criminal behavior and limited grasp of legal process, she gets all nasty, calling them 'trolls'.

Well if she's annoyed about the 'constant emails' then why doesn't she stop posting so offensively?

If S. and her cronies were right about everything - as they appear so convinced that they are - then Knox would be a free women. But she isn't, is she - she's a convicted murderer who gets two automatic appeals.

Rather than attacking law-abiding, articulate people, why doesn't S. explain why Knox's defense is now relying on five other convicted criminals - including a mobster - to testify on her behalf? These fellons don't even believe that Guede was involved, so why not tell us what you think of that, S.?

Think of the little gang you've joined S. - a sacked campus cop who used to guard crime scenes for the FBI, an elderly food blogger who thinks this squalid murder is is 'sensational' and 'spell-binding', a low-level 'judge' who has been reprimanded for using his position to campaign on behalf of a family friend, a drink-drive attorney, a creepy group of 'white knight' bloggers including one who wears Knox T-shirts....and now five convincted criminals including a Mafiosa.

Well you're welcome to your new gang, S., but please don't expect everybody to applaud you for your 'I know I'm right' views about this murder.

Your cute, sweetie-pie writing might work when your blogging about pet dogs, but if you're going to insult the memory of Meredith Kercher by presenting her convicted killers as decent, law-abiding people, then others are always going to have something to say about it.

Anonymous said...

Hey S. - I'm afraid you lost all credibility when you started insulting people personally.

This is the major problem with all the Knox advocates - when their arguments are exposed as wishful thinking based on no facts, they get frustrated and angry and start lashing out at people. Serious Italian lawyers failed to present a coherent defense for Knox. Your blog tells us exactly why.

Michael said...

S Wrote:

"Oh, I hate myself already for getting sucked in, but Michael, I have never said anything about Amanda being held for 1 year before being charged. I cannot answer for all those who did."


Lots of others have though and they're being very quiet right now ;)


You wrote:

halides1 said...

Michael,

Scroll up if you want to see my answer, and Kaosium made some good points as well. I agree with Kaosium: You are playing word games.

Michael said...

BMN Wrote:

"I have seen and responded to several of Michael’s posts during the discussion on recent articles of Bruce Fisher that appeared in GroundReport. My impression is that he belongs to the bandwagon which spreads misinformation on this case. He will go to any extent to win arguments, including lying, and hence one has to be cautious in taking him at face value. For example, he was adamant in claiming that Rafaelle’s drawer had just one knife whereas Massei’s report says: “The witness recognized it when shown Exhibit 36 as that same knife (pages 176 and 177, hearing on February 28, 2009). He remembered that in the drawer there were other knives, but he collected what was later indicated as Exhibit 36.”"


I don't tell lies BMN, I hate liars. This is the draw after the kitchen knife had been removed for testing, now tell me if you see a potential murder weapon conducive to Meredith's injuries:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/gallery/image.php?mode=medium&album_id=21&image_id=669


Personally. I think that since Meredith wasn't forked, spooned, spread, spatula'd or sawed to death, your claim in the other comments section 'that they just happened to randomly pick the right knife from the draw' (the implication being, that action was suspicious) is BS since it was perfectly obvious from a casual inspection that there was only one potential candidate!

Michael said...

halides1 wrote:

"According to the manuscript "Arrested Abroad" by Benjamin Sayagh, the two were held in precautionary detention before being formally indicted in October 2008 (see footnotes 88 and 89)."

That is correct. But it's also charged.

Michael said...

Anon Wrote:

"Last week Berlusconi stated that his country was a police state."


Ummm....that 'might' just be because the judiciary is trying to prosecute the little weasel for corruption and various other crimes...

Michael said...

Anon Wrote:

"Think of the little gang you've joined S. - a sacked campus cop who used to guard crime scenes for the FBI, an elderly food blogger who thinks this squalid murder is is 'sensational' and 'spell-binding', a low-level 'judge' who has been reprimanded for using his position to campaign on behalf of a family friend, a drink-drive attorney, a creepy group of 'white knight' bloggers including one who wears Knox T-shirts....and now five convincted criminals including a Mafiosa."


Don't forget the baby murderer as well ;)

Michael said...

halides1:

"Scroll up if you want to see my answer, and Kaosium made some good points as well. I agree with Kaosium: You are playing word games."


Oh, I'm hardly playing 'word games'. For years now, you people have been screaming about how Knox was held in jail for a year without being charged. I then have an anon poster in this thread spending multiple posts trying to claim Knox was charged in the first few days, using semantics and why? Because it was all of a sudden 'convenient' to change the story because your cohort was desperate to accuse Mignini of charging people so that he/she could claim Mignini charged Mario Spezzi. And you and I both know that at a later time, you'll all be goung back to screaming about how Knox was held for a year without once that becomes convenient again.

You people don't stop at semantics, you go right on into sophistry all to suit 'whatever' is convenient at the time to support your ludicrous conspiracy theories.

Michael said...

OOh look, and we were just chatting about this ;) -

-------------------

Fresh hope for Amanda Knox after five inmates agree to testify she is innocent of murdering British student
By Nick Pisa

Last updated at 6:03 PM on 16th June 2011

One is Mafia mobster who will claim his on-the-run brother did the killing


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2004335/Five-inmates-including-convicted-mobster-testify-Amanda-Knox-innocent-British-students-murder-appeal.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Anonymous said...

Compare and contrast PMF/TJMK with the JREF thread.

PMF/TJMK
1. takes the Massei Report as gospel,
2. Oblivious to the widely known failings in the Italian criminal justice system,
3. Oblivious to well documented police brutality in Italy,
4. Oblivious to the well documented phenomenon
of co-erced false statements/accusations/confessions
5. Attacking anyone who believes in innocence, belittling them and their qualifications,
6. indulging in character assassination of the Knox/Mellas and Sollecito families.
7. shows zero tolerance to any poster who advocates innocence

JREF
1. Detailed discussions on all the facts and evidence in which anyone can participate.
2. Arguments are attacked, not the arguer.

Anonymous said...

'This was a railroad job from hell' and 'The people from the True Justice site are just plan evil' writes one typical 'Knox fan' poster.

Who knows, Dumbo may well be related to the child killer who has just been confirmed as one of Knox's new defense witnesses.

Good luck with your new buddies,S...You'll need it.

halides1 said...

Harry Rag,

Whether it was a fingerprint or a palm print, it still backs up my contention that one can discard the DNA evidence, and Guede is still placed into Meredith’s bedroom by this and other evidence, such as the shoeprints.

What time do you think that Meredith died? Thanks in advance.

halides1 said...

Michael,

Amanda and Raffaele were held under a special precautionary detention law that required grave indications of guilt. Raffaele began that year in solitary confinement. Remind me, what were the grave indications of guilt as of 8 November 2007? Who was it who asked that this law be invoked?

You wrote of how much you don’t like lies. What about the bleach receipts that did not materialize, the Harry Potter book that the police said was not at Raffaele’s, Amanda’s supposedly missing sweatshirt, the Laundromat story, the story that the police arrived at the girls’ flat before Raffaele called the Carabinieiri, and the release of pink bathroom photo? Once you get done explaining how you can countenance these lies, we can discuss a few more.

Anonymous said...

What motivates Michael Harris,
Peggy Ganong and Peter Quennell to run internet sites supporting the incompetent and corrupt Italian courts and state police?
Then having the gall to say they are venerating the memory of Meredith Kercher.

The great tragedy is that Meredith ,and Amanda and Rafaelle are all victims of this massive injustice.

Grace Moore said...

Fresh hope for Amanda Knox after five inmates agree to testify she is innocent of murdering British student
By Nick Pisa

One is Mafia mobster who will claim his on-the-run brother did the killing
============================
Five prisoners are scheduled June 2? 2007 to testify during the appeal of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Four prisoners will testify that Guede said Amanda and Raffaele were not present at the apartment the evening Meredith was murdered,

One prisoner, a Mafia mobster (maybe) will claim his brother did the killing.

As I recall this prisoner testified against the mobs for the prosecution on more than one occasion. His brother may have been involved with a burglary ring, but the evidence clearly shows that Guede alone murdered the girl.

Why were the police searching the premises, after 10 pm the evening Meredith was murdered, the location/garden where the phones stolen from Meredith were found the following morning, hours before the body was discovered. Were they looking for a bomb or cell phones? The question comes to mind, was Guede and some postal police officers involved in a burglary ring, as well as the brother being accused? There may be more to his story than we anticipate?

Massei's report says the bomb threat occurred around 10 pm, however Guede made a call to Meredith's bank at 10 pm so the phones are not in the garden at this time, so what time was the bomb threat actually made? Massei says AROUND 10 pm but we all have learned the cops have difficulty with arithmetic and ascertaining the correct time time. It's possible that Massei meant 10:59 pm is around 10 pm. Massei's report is full of errors such as this. Sometimes I wonder if anyone bothered to proof read the motivation report.

Anonymous said...

Yep - and so is Rudy Guede, according to the five new pro-Knox defense witnesses. All of them are convicted criminals so they will undoubtedly provide you with plenty more 'crucial information' to add to your fascinating conspiracy theories, 'Mr Massive Injustice'.

Anonymous said...

It is astonishing that the guilters cannot understand why Aviello and Alessi are appearing as defence witnesses tomorrow by express permission of Judge Hellmann.

Aviello wrote to the previous court 3 times accusing his brother of the murder, but was totally ignored.

As were Alessi and other inmates who said Guede had told them AK and RS were not involved.

Why?
The prosecutors have a duty to investigate and disclose all
evidence from whatever source.
Failure to do so constitutes extreme negligence and bias against the accused.

Anonymous said...

Another talking point of the guilters is that those supporting innocence are apparently claiming a conspiracy.

This is arrant nonsense.
There is no conspiracy.

What we have seen is
1. Incompetence, dishonesty and brutality by the state police
2. Mignini with his overwrought imagination
3. Overworked preliminary judges who rubber stamp the police and prosecutors' case
4. Stefanoni's dishonesty and an uncredited and improperly equipped laboratory
5. Judges sitting with jurors thereby unduly influencing them
6. Police and prosecutors continually feeding the press with seriously misleading and often untrue information
7. Defence counsel of whom none had ever appeared at a murder trial before.

That's not all.

Mattie said...

Halides1 and Sarah:

Thanks so much for tirelessly defending truth, justice, and reason. I have been following the case for years but do not have your patience. You have done a great job of navigating the twists and turns of partial truths and misleading statements. Let's hope justice is done soon.

Anonymous said...

Mattie, Halides1 and Sarah:

Thank you deeply and honestly for being Mattie, Halides1 and Sarah. We deeply respect and honour you for being such wonderful people and for exonerating the equally upstanding Miss Knox of ever having taken drugs to the pointof memory loss, drunk alcohol or accused a black man of being a murderer.

Your commendable blogging skills have done what highly-paid lawyers have been unable to do- which is to prove beyond doubt that a Mafia hit man/burglar who likes climbing walls was the real killer, and not Miss Knox, who is right now is being interviewed for a new post as an Amnesty International peace ambassador.

Once again...thank you deeply and honestly for being there. Thank you too to the five brave Italian criminals who, like you, had the 'imagination' to stand by Miss Knox during her 'best version of the truth I can remember' ordeal.

halides1 said...

Anonymous,

I do not subscribe to your opinion that Ms. Knox had a memory loss due to drugs; in fact I think that this is quite unlikely. Ms. Knox had been told in effect that her memory was wrong (they claimed to have hard proof that she was at the girls' flat) and that she was repressing the memory. WIth respect to the subject of false confessions, Saul Kassin wrote, "Indeed, Gudjonsson and MacKeith (1982) suggested that this type of confession was the product of 'memory distrust syndrome,' a form of source amnesia in which people develop a profound distrust of their memory, rendering them vulnerable to influence from external cues and suggestions." Ms. Knox's statement was not exactly a confession, but the same principles apply, IMO.

halides1 said...

To clarify my previous comment, it should have read "that she was repressing the memory of the murder."

Alex said...

@Harry Rag

"Knox and Sollecito are sadistic sex killers on a par with Myra Hindley and Ian Brady, and Fred and Rosemary West."

You wish.

It was a common-or-garden variety 1 on 1 breakin/rape/murder -- no more, and no less, sensational than that. Meredith was not the best Prime Minister England never had, just someone in the wrong place at the wrong time. Isn't that tragic enough?

Get down from your ivory tower and stop with your lies.

halides1 said...

Another problem with the "luminol is more sensitive than TMB" argument is that it fails to take into account that at high dilutions the luminol reaction is fainter and not as long lasting. Yet Colonel Garofano talked about the "sheer luminosity" of the footprints. It is difficult to reconcile the luminosity of the prints with the putative blood being at high dilution. Moreover, there are other substances that give a positive reaction with luminol including Drano and rust.

BMN said...

My response to Michael's post (addressed to me) follows:

Even assuming that the photograph is from a reliable source, it is childish to produce that as any evidence when one cannot even see the whole drawer. This clearly shows what kind of evidence you have been relying upon to make personal opinions.

Now coming to the part that proves you a liar. You mentioned in the other comments section that the decisions taken by the judges should be taken as "the TRUTH" but now you are implying that Massei's decision to include this "He remembered that in the drawer there were other knives, but he collected what was later indicated as Exhibit 36." in his own report cannot be relied upon. Therefore, either you were telling a lie earlier or doing so now. Are you not proved a liar in either case?

Anonymous said...

For all the discussions and arguments on various forums has any guilter changed his/her mind in the last 9 months?

The Massei Report and the current appeal is on the contrary reinforcing their viewpoint.

People will believe what they want to believe.
Logic and reason be damned.

Randy N said...

Harry Rag aka The Machine has not had a new idea in three years. S(he) uses the same old long dis-proven BS to rant and rave. S(he) is a member of a well know hate group that can found at TJMK and PMF web sites.

Its pointless arguing with this tripe. They lie. Its as simple as that. No real fact like a correct TOD, or motive, or eyewitness, or even murder weapon. S(he) disrespects the murdered girl Meredith Kercher by lying about her friend.

Wheres the blond hair Harry? Certainly such a key piece of evidence found in the poor murdered girls right hand would be the key that solves this case. Where is it? You fraud you!!! Go back to your basement with Some Alibi, Stilecho, Skep Bystand, Yummi,Kermit and the pervert Peter. You all are a bunch of trash...

StacyH said...

If one more person says S is uneducated I think I might blow a gasket. If one more person says she has limited knowledge of the law ....

She's a defense attorney. A practicing one.

What do you people do for a living? Besides troll blogs that talk about Amanda Knox of course.

Anonymous said...

The halfwitted guilters on PMF/TJMK lost the argument long ago so all they do is trash anyone who disagrees with them.
Sad and pathetic.

S said...

This has been a fascinating glimpse into an odd, odd internet subset. I don't really get what drives these people who just continue to repeat the same tired lies and non-evidence to support Amanda and Rafaelle's guilt. It isn't honoring Meredith's memory or achieving justice in her name to keep her innocent friend in prison.

Anonymous said...

@S. wrote: 'This has been a fascinating glimpse into an odd, odd internet subset.'

Which you're now a part of. There are extremists on both side of the debate. Your aggressive certainty that you know exactly what happened is both offensive and sinister.

You get moderate, intelligent people commenting on this court process on both sides - they post interesting comments, and help to keep this case in the public eye.

@halides1, for example, presents his arguments in a manner which is respectful and easy to follow. He never attacks people, and makes a worthwhile contribution to the debate without pretending that he has all the answers.

Then - on both sides - you get individuals who are rabid, rude and utterly convinced that they've solved everything. Their absolute certainty about everything is matched only by their vicious arrogance.


The fact that you so coldly speak about Meredith's 'innocent friend' says it all. You know nothing about Meredith: you never met her, you've never met her family, you have no idea who her friends were. And you certainly have no certain idea who stabbed the life out of her and left her to die in agony.

Can you imagine how Meredith's parents feel (and, yes, they do read what appears on the worldwide web about their murdered daughter) when an anonymous poster starts writing so confidently about 'Meredith's innocent friend', Amanda Knox.

Just think about it, S. Have a read of John Kercher's views about his daughter's convicted killer, and compare them to your trite, insenstive posts.

I'm not saying John's right about this case (although he undoubtedly knows at least 100 times more about the process which convicted Knox than the rest of us), and I'm certainly not saying you're right, but you should not be posting such insensitive claims as if they were fact.

Reading your complacent rants makes you sound just like the extremists on the other side of the debate - ones you clearly hate for no other reason except that they have different opinions to you.

As far as decent people are concerned, you're all welcome to one another. Despite your prejudices, there's no doubt that there are enough moderate, intelligent people in the Italian criminal justice system to decide Knox's appeals, just as they decided her very public and fully explained first trial.

In the face of this, the 'odd, odd internet subset' which you belong to could scarcely be less important.

Anonymous said...

S. and StacyH, You both wondered what is motivating these (or this) guilter troll. I was thinking about that a lot today. It is pretty clear he/she is not an honest broker with a different opinion. He/she is patently dishonest.

Normally I try to never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence. But...

This troll spends some serious hours, not just on this blog but all over the place. (Also, to my ear, "Michael" and "Harry Rag" sound like the same voice.)

Magnini, the "Pubblico Ministero" with his bizarre theories and reported following of Carlizzi strikes me as an unstable character. He aggresively goes after those he considers enemies. He has aggressively gone after for slander any number of entities that he perceives as threates, including Knox's parents, the West Seattle Herald, reporters. (I'm sure there's a more complete list somewhere.)

His "leaks" of sensational rumors to the press in the first year of this fiasco shows he is inclined to manipulate public opinion.

I would not put it past him to hire one or more agents to muck up the blogosphere. Just my opinion.

-RD

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 272   Newer› Newest»
 
Blog Designed by : NW Designs