Amanda Knox retrial begins

130Kph

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Sexual deviancy

How do you explain only evidence for Guede’s involvement all over the crime scene (his dna, bloodied handprints, footprints etc) and zero similar evidence (now) of Knox or Sollecito - are you suggesting for example, that in this supposed sexually deviant triple joint conspiracy murder scenario that the latter two wore body suits, hair-nets and gloves before and during the murder but Guede did not wear similar protective clothing?

Cianmcliam

130Kph wrote: »

How do you explain only evidence for Guede’s involvement all over the crime scene (his dna, bloodied handprints, footprints etc) and zero similar evidence (now) of Knox or Sollecito - are you suggesting for example, that in this supposed sexually deviant triple joint conspiracy murder scenario that the latter two wore body suits, hair-nets and gloves before and during the murder but Guede did not wear similar protective clothing?

There had been more than one attacker so someone else, whether it was or wasn't Knox and Sollecito, left no DNA. That is if we are excluding the DNA of Sollecito found on the bra clasp.

Cianmcliam

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

This was the theory originally propunded by the plodding police force of Perugia. It nicely wrapped up all their suspects in a handy little fantasy that on the one hand could explain their original arrest of Lamumba and subsequent release and on the other, without affecting the motives that they'd carefully worked into Knox's statement.

It was very hard for them to abandon all this, so it continued through the myriad trials until it was eventually pushed aside by the Court of Cassation.

The phrase "Appalling vista" comes to mind unbidden.

However the mud was thrown and continues to stick in the minds of those willing to embrace such things.

That was how the killers made it look. Hours after she died they removed her clothes from the bottom half of her body, rolled up her top, cut off her bra and placed her lying face up on a pillow as if she had just been sexually assaulted and murdered on the floor. Whoever did it had very sick minds.

Lingua Franca

Means Of Escape wrote: »

No I believe that the truth has not come out and I believe that they were both complicit in the murder .

Ok, I was just wondering why you said the motive was the same as the reason that Homolka 'murdered' her sister. Since that death was actually accidental and incidental to the crime they were committing (they'd drugged and raped her before and presumably hoped to do so again) it makes no sense as an analogy. Had you compared it to the later, deliberate murders they committed I'd have got it.

The reason why it's back in court is because there are unresolved issues in the case and that the Keecher family and many others believe that justice has not been served

...it's back in court? Do you have a link for that?

Lingua Franca

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Possible that Guede made a plea bargain for information he had and this will be used in retrial as new evidence that allows said retrial

He pled guilty upfront and has served his sentence. Why on earth would he go seeking a retrial?

Where are you getting your news on all these new court cases from?

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

That was how the killers made it look. Hours after she died they removed her clothes from the bottom half of her body, rolled up her top, cut off her bra and placed her lying face up on a pillow as if she had just been sexually assaulted and murdered on the floor. Whoever did it had very sick minds.

Or you do.

Because the evidence completely contradicts that. There was blood on her chest, her bra and other parts of her clothing. Part of the scenario envisaged by Nencini included somebody (purportedly Sollecito) pulling up her sweatshirt and tee shirt at the back and cutting her bra strap. While she was still alive. This was all reconstructed to explain the bloodstains and the other evidence.

And are you suggesting that Guede's DNA was also inserted into her body at the time of this alleged staging?

Cianmcliam

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Or you do.

Because the evidence completely contradicts that. There was blood on her chest, her bra and other parts of her clothing. Part of the scenario envisaged by Nencini included somebody (purportedly Sollecito) pulling up her sweatshirt and tee shirt at the back and cutting her bra strap. While she was still alive. This was all reconstructed to explain the bloodstains and the other evidence.

And are you suggesting that Guede's DNA was also inserted into her body at the time of this alleged staging?

Actually yes, you are probably right on that, that her clothes were removed shortly after the fatal wound, her body was moved into a different position though I think because of the older blood pool at the place of death and a bloody shoe print belonging to a woman's shoe the same size as Amanda Knox was found under the body.

Cianmcliam

Yes, you're right, it was the bed clothes and towels that moved and placed under the body and the pelvis propped under a pillow with her legs apart to suggest an assault on the floor.

130Kph

Cianmcliam wrote: »

There had been more than one attacker so someone else, whether it was or wasn't Knox and Sollecito, left no DNA. That is if we are excluding the DNA of Sollecito found on the bra clasp.

This was a physical, messy, bloody struggle going on for some non-trivial amount of time- supposedly involving four people in that tiny bedroom. So I ask you the same question-

are you suggesting, that in this supposed joint conspiracy / sexually deviant murder - that Knox & Sollecito wore body suits, hair-nets and gloves before and during the murder but Guede did not wear similar protective clothing and that Sollecito then mistakenly took off his gloves when handling the bra clasp?

The dna on the clasp is the only unexplained evidence. In criminal cases in Ireland/UK etc the defendant is found guilty only when the case is proven beyond reasonable doubt (Italy has a different burden of proof).

So given the bungling by the forensics, prosecutor, dubious laboratory standards and other glaring flaws in the case – you believe this bra clasp dna alone is enough on it’s own to put Sollecito AND Knox behind bars for 20 or 30 years.

Cianmcliam

The bra clasp DNA alone is not enough, and I never claimed it was, though it probably would have convicted Sollecito in some countries. The bloody woman's shoe print of the same size as Amanda Knox within the locked room proves one woman was involved.

The lack of defensive wounds and the multiple bruises from being held both by the arms and by the mouth, while knives were cutting her, means a lone attacker needed three arms at least. In fact Meredith could not struggle much at all, she was held by multiple people and could not flinch while a sharp knife was run along her neck and sometime later slashed her throat.

So we are back to the same question, there was a violent attack committed by more than one killer so the lack of DNA from any other killers or Amanda or Sollecito does not mean they could not be involved.

There was nothing dubious about the lab standards by the way.

Just to add, blonde and chestnut hairs, same colour as Knox and Sollecito plus black hair the same as Rudy's were found in the room. The blonde hair was found on the duvet, mattress and purse, a chestnut hair was found on the bra and were similar to those found at Sollecito's apartment.

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Actually yes, you are probably right on that, that her clothes were removed shortly after the fatal wound, her body was moved into a different position though I think because of the older blood pool at the place of death and a bloody shoe print belonging to a woman's shoe the same size as Amanda Knox was found under the body.

That evidence was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

With reference to the imprints, there was an obvious error in the judgment, also present in the judgment of annullment of Cassation (p. 21), considering that the only imprint retrieved in Kercher’s room belonged to Guede.

There's no mention of the body being moved, but it was covered by a duvet.

130Kph

Cianmcliam wrote: »

..... The bloody woman's shoe print of the same size as Amanda Knox within the locked room proves one woman was involved.

There were eight bloodied shoe prints in the room. 6 were Guede’s the other two were disputed; Sollecito’s defence team argued these two prints were also Guede’s.

Have you a link to an official site or a credible news site that describes this alledged woman's bloody shoe print and whether it was accepted by the court.

Just to add, blonde and chestnut hairs, same colour as Knox and Sollecito plus black hair the same as Rudy's were found in the room. The blonde hair was found on the duvet, mattress and purse, a chestnut hair was found on the bra and were similar to those found at Sollecito's apartment.

Also, credible link please?

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

The bra clasp DNA alone is not enough, and I never claimed it was, though it probably would have convicted Sollecito in some countries. The bloody woman's shoe print of the same size as Amanda Knox within the locked room proves one woman was involved.

Here's what Nencini said:

In relation to Exhibit 165B (the bra clasp), the Court reasoned as follows: “Concerning the genetic profile of Raffaele Sollecito, indicated by the Scientific Police as being present on the clasp of the bra worn by the victim, it is observed that the expert team could not extract from the hook (or from the other hook, as there were in fact two hooks) any DNA useful for analysis. This was probably a consequence of the manner in which the clasp was stored: the experts found the hooks covered with a crusty red‐brown material, probably arising from the oxidation of the salts of the extraction solution used by the Scientific Police, and from rusty elements in the metal itself. The expert team went on to evaluate the procedures followed by the Scientific Police and revealed both errors in interpretation of the graph and, again, the lack of the precautions that are considered necessary to avoid any possible contamination.”
These observations led the Judges of Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia to believe that “(...) Now, it is quite true that in this graph, apart from the profile of the victim (the main contributor), a profile that can be attributed to Sollecito is also present, but this is not a guarantee that this profile is actually correct, given that in reality, if one takes other peaks into account that are also present in the graph but were not considered by the Scientific Police, it is possible to arrive at a different conclusion ( ... )
But the reliability of the result indicated by the Scientific Police is, in this case, further undermined by the evidence collection methods, which were such as to make it impossible to guarantee the purity of the exhibit; in fact they were such as to make it impossible to rule out that the DNA that hypothetically belongs to Raffaele Sollecito ended up on the bra hooks not because Raffaele Sollecito left it there by direct contact on the occasion of the alleged attack on Meredith Kercher but because it was transported there accidentally by other individuals who frequented the crime scene.”

A completely useless piece of non-evidence which would never have even been considered in another country. But then again, it would never have been so carelessly discarded for so long in another country either.

Cianmcliam wrote: »

The lack of defensive wounds and the multiple bruises from being held both by the arms and by the mouth, while knives were cutting her, means a lone attacker needed three arms at least. In fact Meredith could not struggle much at all, she was held by multiple people and could not flinch while a sharp knife was run along her neck and sometime later slashed her throat.

Guede had injuries to his hand when arrested in Germany, pointing to the break-in being plausible since there was also traces of his blood found on glass shards. Kercher also had injuries to her hands and forearms (characterised as defensive in nature) and she was certainly held tightly. But the scenario that all of this happened at the same time is just that. A scenario. A big man like Guede could use his knees to hold her arms back while straddling her. It's not even an unusual method of restraining somebody who is weaker and much lighter than the assailant.

Cianmcliam wrote: »

So we are back to the same question, there was a violent attack committed by more than one killer so the lack of DNA from any other killers or Amanda or Sollecito does not mean they could not be involved.

Only if you restrict the attack to a certain scenario and exclude all others. For example, much was made of the fact that (apparently) Sollecito cut her bra whilst she was being restrained. The fact is that she was stabbed before the bra was removed and it was removed whilst she was bleeding profusely. Those actions are sequential and not simultaneous.

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Just to add, blonde and chestnut hairs, same colour as Knox and Sollecito plus black hair the same as Rudy's were found in the room. The blonde hair was found on the duvet, mattress and purse, a chestnut hair was found on the bra and were similar to those found at Sollecito's apartment.

The hair on the bra was attributed to Guede.

Cianmcliam

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Here's what Nencini said:

A completely useless piece of non-evidence which would never have even been considered in another country. But then again, it would never have been so carelessly discarded for so long in another country either.

You are actually quoting the report by Hellman, since discredited and annulled by the Supreme Court. This is what Nencini actually determined:

this Court also considers it completely unreasonable to entertain the notion that another person, not Raffaele Sollecito but with a haplotype that coincides with his at the maximum number of 17 loci, could have left the trace that was found on Exhibit 165B. Indeed, that would be tantamount to assuming that a person different from Raffaele Sollecito but belonging to the same male line as him and therefore possessing the identical Y chromosome entered the cottage at 7 Via della Pergola. Furthermore, this hypothetical person would also have to have had all of the uncontested genetic loci that identical to those constituting the specific individualizing inheritance of Raffaele Sollecito.
From these considerations, it can be deduced that the fact that the Y haplotype of Raffaele Sollecito coincides with the Y haplotype found on the trace extracted from Exhibit 165B leads to the conclusion that the biological trace found on the hook of the clasp of the bra that Meredith Kercher was wearing on the evening she was murdered was left by Raffaele Sollecito. This conclusion is rendered even more obvious, and thus more convincing, by the fact that Raffaele Sollecito’s genetic profile coincides with the one found in the trace at the numerous loci that were not contested by any of the consultants.

[250] It is thus possible to assert that the genetic investigations performed by the Scientific Police on the hook of the clasp of the bra worn by Meredith Kercher on the evening she was killed yielded a piece of evidence of indisputable significance. Both by the quantity of DNA analyzed and by the fact of having performed the analysis at 17 loci with unambiguous results, not to mention the fact that the results of the analysis were confirmed by the attribution of the Y haplotype to the defendant, it is possible to say that it has been judicially ascertained that Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was present on the exhibit; an exhibit that was therefore handled by the defendant on the night of the murder.

brickmauser

Cianmcliam wrote: »

I think that is probably the weakest part of the prosecution case. There is no apparent motive for a killing that was exceptionally brutal and cruel, apart from the possibility the killers were out of their minds on drugs and what started as an argument escalated out of control. Still, there are surely more people like Graham Dwyer out there living normal lives and getting vulnerable people involved in murder.

Nonetheless, the Italian courts consider it proven that there was more than one person involved, a cleanup did happen after the murder (only one bloody footprint on the bathroom mat and none around it on the floor), one of the people involved was female (female size shoe print beside the body that was obviously not Guede's), Guede had no reason to revisit the scene to re-arrange the body and could not have known the other housemates were not going to return, Knox claiming Meredith always locked her room when the other housemates were extremely worried that it was locked, her admission made twice in questioning and once in writing, Cassation considering it proven she was there on the night and her alibi was untrue, the staging of the burglary etc. etc. That, along with lots of other evidence, point to her involvement as a participant or an accessory.

There is no physical evidence of Knox or Sollecito in the room killing Kercher.

All the physical and circumstantial evidence places them at Sollecito flat at the time of the killing.

There is not one shred of proof against them.

This had been gone over several times already on this thread.

It is utterly bizarre that you persist in claiming Knox and Sollecito were guilty.

brickmauser

Cianmcliam wrote: »

You are actually quoting the report by Hellman, since discredited and annulled by the Supreme Court. This is what Nencini actually determined:

this Court also considers it completely unreasonable to entertain the notion that another person, not Raffaele Sollecito but with a haplotype that coincides with his at the maximum number of 17 loci, could have left the trace that was found on Exhibit 165B. Indeed, that would be tantamount to assuming that a person different from Raffaele Sollecito but belonging to the same male line as him and therefore possessing the identical Y chromosome entered the cottage at 7 Via della Pergola. Furthermore, this hypothetical person would also have to have had all of the uncontested genetic loci that identical to those constituting the specific individualizing inheritance of Raffaele Sollecito.
From these considerations, it can be deduced that the fact that the Y haplotype of Raffaele Sollecito coincides with the Y haplotype found on the trace extracted from Exhibit 165B leads to the conclusion that the biological trace found on the hook of the clasp of the bra that Meredith Kercher was wearing on the evening she was murdered was left by Raffaele Sollecito. This conclusion is rendered even more obvious, and thus more convincing, by the fact that Raffaele Sollecito’s genetic profile coincides with the one found in the trace at the numerous loci that were not contested by any of the consultants.

[250] It is thus possible to assert that the genetic investigations performed by the Scientific Police on the hook of the clasp of the bra worn by Meredith Kercher on the evening she was killed yielded a piece of evidence of indisputable significance. Both by the quantity of DNA analyzed and by the fact of having performed the analysis at 17 loci with unambiguous results, not to mention the fact that the results of the analysis were confirmed by the attribution of the Y haplotype to the defendant, it is possible to say that it has been judicially ascertained that Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was present on the exhibit; an exhibit that was therefore handled by the defendant on the night of the murder.

The clasp was contaminated by mishandling by the forensic team.

This has already been explained.

Why are you still raising a point already refuted?

brickmauser

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Sexual deviancy

Where is the evidence of this?
There is no evidence whatsoever of prior sexual deviancy by Amanda Knox.
Only evidence that Knox was a normal girl who liked to date guys.
There is no evidence that Knox liked group sex or took part in group sex and there is no evidence she was sexually attracted in anyway to Kercher or any other woman.

So quite frankly your theory is nonsense.

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

You are actually quoting the report by Hellman, since discredited and annulled by the Supreme Court. This is what Nencini actually determined:

[250] It is thus possible to assert that the genetic investigations performed by the Scientific Police on the hook of the clasp of the bra worn by Meredith Kercher on the evening she was killed yielded a piece of evidence of indisputable significance. Both by the quantity of DNA analyzed and by the fact of having performed the analysis at 17 loci with unambiguous results, not to mention the fact that the results of the analysis were confirmed by the attribution of the Y haplotype to the defendant, it is possible to say that it has been judicially ascertained that Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was present on the exhibit; an exhibit that was therefore handled by the defendant on the night of the murder.

You claim to have read the Supreme Court findings and yet in refuting my dismissal of this piece of 'evidence' omit to mention that they said:

His presence on the murder scene, and specifically inside the room where the murder was committed, is linked to only the biological trace found on the bra fastener hook (item 165/b), the attribution of which, however, cannot have any certainty, since such trace is insusceptible of a second amplification, given its scarce amount, for that it is – as we said – an element lacking of circumstantial evidentiary value.

You're grasping at straws. Every one of your assertions has been disproven by one court or another.

brickmauser

It is clear that the police jumped to conclusions and developed an inflexible bias against Knox. Once they assumed the burglary was faked they assumed Meredith was killed by someone in the house. They eliminated the other Italians and focused in the goofy girl with broken Italian who was irritating and childish.
When the press went crazy about an American girl with the face of angel being a suspect the mundane reality intruded.
The case was actually a routine case of a drifter breaking and entering and sexually assaulting and stabbing a girl who interrupted him.
The police and prosecutors rather than admit their stunning stupidity steamrolled on with their attempts to destroy the unwitting Knox and Sollecito.
To make a square peg fit in a round hole they concocted a bizarre story of group sex debauchery and murder.
A silly girl who smoked dope and liked to sleep around and a geeky computer and comic nerd were transformed into monsters.

Cianmcliam

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

You claim to have read the Supreme Court findings and yet in refuting my dismissal of this piece of 'evidence' omit to mention that they said:



You're grasping at straws. Every one of your assertions has been disproven by one court or another.

Ah, new tactic. I see. Quote from two different documents relating to different rulings and claim my quote is omitting a contradiction below it from a single document.

CMOTDibbler

brickmauser wrote: »

It is clear that the police jumped to conclusions and developed an inflexible bias against Knox. Once they assumed the burglary was faked they assumed Meredith was killed by someone in the house. They eliminated the other Italians and focused in the goofy girl with broken Italian who was irritating and childish.
When the press went crazy about an American girl with the face of angel being a suspect the mundane reality intruded.
The case was actually a routine case of a drifter breaking and entering and sexually assaulting and stabbing a girl who interrupted him.
The police and prosecutors rather than admit their stunning stupidity steamrolled on with their attempts to destroy the unwitting Knox and Sollecito.

How they managed to ignore the evidence of the break in is astonishing. There was even a fragment of glass found in Kercher's room, Guede had a cut on his right palm and matching traces of blood were found on glass shards from the window.

The list of stupid mistakes is almost endless. Apart from the countless errors in preserving the scene and collecting physical evidence, the pathologist who estimated the time of death, had mistakenly put down "not less than 2-3 hours from her last meal" instead of "not more than..."

Or the police technicians when examining the computers of Knox and Kercher, set them on fire by plugging in the wrong power supplies and rendered them incapable of providing any further evidence.

All of this came out in the last appeal hearing and yet despite that, many elements of the (by now) completely discredited investigation were maintained because they had been unchallenged (there had been so many things to challenge, it's not really surprising).

Cianmcliam

brickmauser wrote: »

There is no physical evidence of Knox or Sollecito in the room killing Kercher.

All the physical and circumstantial evidence places them at Sollecito flat at the time of the killing.

There is not one shred of proof against them.

This had been gone over several times already on this thread.

It is utterly bizarre that you persist in claiming Knox and Sollecito were guilty.

The Gospel According to St. Marriott*

You forgot to say 'Amen'



*Gogerty Marriott PR firm of Seattle hired by Knox family to manage how the trial was presented in US media.

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Ah, new tactic. I see. Quote from two different documents relating to different rulings and claim my quote is omitting a contradiction below it from a single document.

It doesn't actually need a contradiction from the Supreme Court. The actual handling of that piece of evidence and it's being discarded by literally being dropped on the floor, kicked around by various different investigators before eventually being retrieved from a pile of clothes and other debris and then analysed, makes it impossible to draw any definitive proof of anything from it.

The imcompetence is staggering. They literally had it in their hands, passed it around and photographed it and then dropped it back on the floor and left it there. For weeks. The judge even referred to the dirty latex gloves that they were wearing when it was first picked up.

brickmauser

Cianmcliam wrote: »

The Gospel According to St. Marriott*

You forgot to say 'Amen'



*Gogerty Marriott PR firm of Seattle hired by Knox family to manage how the trial was presented in US media.

Show us what you got? What do you have that proves Knox and Sollecito are guilty? You have nothing. If there was something both would be in jail.

Cianmcliam

brickmauser wrote: »

Show us what you got? What do you have that proves Knox and Sollecito are guilty? You have nothing. If there was something both would be in jail.

Don't forget they were in jail after being convicted beyond reasonable doubt. They were then convicted again beyond reasonable doubt from arguments brought forward by an entirely different prosecutor to an entirely different judge.

Anyone who says there is no strong evidence at all belongs in the Conspiracy Theory forum.

As legendary US lawyer Alan Dershowitz says:
""I have to tell you, in 50 years of practicing law, I had never seen a more one-sided presentation by the media in the United States of the case. Everybody is saying there's no evidence against her and she's totally innocent. It's just not true."source

The Hellman verdict that saw them released was scathingly criticised and thrown out by the Supreme Court for being illogical in dealing with the evidence and basing its reasoning as if there was only the defence making any arguments. The final ruling was based on the exact same errors the Supreme Court demolished in their report and in the Nencini report.

Here's what the Supreme Court said in its annulment of the Hellman acquital about the b*****t excuse that the bra clasp was contaminated:
"Even more surprising was Hellmann's incorporation, without any criticism, the argument advanced by these experts on the "possible" contamination of the findings, this thesis being completely unmoored from scientific reasoning. The unproven hypothesis of the contamination was taken as axiomatic, once again forcing the flow of facts one way, to cancel the scope of evidence collected when these captured data did not lead to similar conclusions."

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Don't forget they were in jail after being convicted beyond reasonable doubt. They were then convicted again beyond reasonable doubt from arguments brought forward by an entirely different prosecutor to an entirely different judge.

Anyone who says there is no strong evidence at all belongs in the Conspiracy Theory forum.

So the judges in the Supreme Court of Cassation should presumably get their usernames registered pronto.

An objectively wavering process, the oscillations of which are the result of glaring failures or investigative “amnesias” and of culpable omissions in investigating activities, which, had they been carried out, would have, probably, allowed from the start the outline a framework, if not of certainty, at least of reassuring reliability, in direction of either the guilt or the non-involvement of the current appellants. Such scenario, intrinsically contradictory, constitutesa first, eloquent, representation of an evidential set of anything but “beyond reasonable doubt”

8-10

For the pro-conviction people, what is your assessment of the police investigation, i.e. are there any flaws you accept, and what do you actually think, based on the evidence you know about, Amanda's crime was specifically?

Cianmcliam

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

So the judges in the Supreme Court of Cassation should presumably get their usernames registered pronto.

They are not among the 'there is no evidence' crowd, they have ruled Knox was in the house on the night of the murder, Sollecito probably was too, their alibis were false (or 'failed' as they very charitably say) and they have very strong suspicions of their involvement.

retro:electro

Where does Amanda's phone signal say she was on the night?(genuine question)

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

They are not among the 'there is no evidence' crowd, they have ruled Knox was in the house on the night of the murder, Sollecito probably was too, their alibis were false (or 'failed' as they very charitably say) and they have very strong suspicions of their involvement.

They have ruled that Knox was in the house based on her statement. It's the only evidence that survived that far. The failed alibi is funny in that it was also used by the prosecution earlier to prove she was in the vicinity of the house at the (now deemed incorrect) time of the murder.

The statement being accepted as proof of her presence is a head scratcher, since it was used as proof she was lying in the case of Lumumba and got her a three year sentence for that lie. If part of it is deemed a lie, how can the rest of it carry any weight?

CMOTDibbler

anna080 wrote: »

Where does Amanda's phone signal say she was on the night?(genuine question)

There's no definitive statement on that I can find. There was some discussion of where she was when texted by Lumumba and it was established that she had to be outside Sollecito's apartment to receive and reply to that text. After that, I don't know.

But since their houses were in close proximity, I would assume that they would connect to the same mast regardless of which house they were in, which would negate that as a possible indication of their location.

Cianmcliam

anna080 wrote: »

Where does Amanda's phone signal say she was on the night?(genuine question)

Nencini finds that her mobile triggered a mast that doesn't serve Sollecito's apartment but does serve Patrick's bar. This proves she lied that she never left his apartment. After that both mobiles seem to have been turned off, Sollecito's mobile only received a text his father sent the night before in the very early morning after the murder, which also proves that he was not asleep until 10am I think they claimed.

Cianmcliam

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

They have ruled that Knox was in the house based on her statement. It's the only evidence that survived that far. The failed alibi is funny in that it was also used by the prosecution earlier to prove she was in the vicinity of the house at the (now deemed incorrect) time of the murder.

The statement being accepted as proof of her presence is a head scratcher, since it was used as proof she was lying in the case of Lumumba and got her a three year sentence for that lie. If part of it is deemed a lie, how can the rest of it carry any weight?

As Nencini says, her story about meeting Patrick in the square before going into the house matched Curatolo's statement that he saw them there around the same time before the murder and then later.
Her description of the sexual assault and murder matched details she could not have known at the time.
Sollecito withdrew her alibi voluntarily on the night of the 5th.
Her description of Meredith's death beside the wardrobe to the housemates matched the spot of the fatal blow and she could not have known this.
They ruled she scrubbed Meredith's blood off her body which could not have been an accidental or innocent transfer of blood or she would have mentioned it to the postal police.
The staged burglary and the evidence of Guede running out of the house with runners still on his feet, while bare footed footprints in blood were found.
The complete nonsense of Guede returning to the scene to lock the door and clean the floors.
The fact that valuable items were left completely untouched.

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Nencini finds that her mobile triggered a mast that doesn't serve Sollecito's apartment but does serve Patrick's bar. This proves she lied that she never left his apartment. After that both mobiles seem to have been turned off, Sollecito's mobile only received a text his father sent the night before in the very early morning after the murder, which also proves that he was not asleep until 10am I think they claimed.

Mobile phone connection data is very unreliable. I have a sketchy enough connection at home, but it generally shows a bar or three. However I have received text messages on numerous occasions from Vodafone telling me I have missed a call without the phone having been moved from its location or it ringing (obviously).

This is always a factor of indoor mobile coverage. I currently use a 4G router for internet access which gets its 4G signal from a mast over three kilometres from my house. Occasionally (the latest being yesterday evening) it dropped the 4G connection and picked up a 3G connection from a mast less than a kilometre away. Again without it being moved or interfered with.

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

As Nencini says, her story about meeting Patrick in the square before going into the house matched Curatolo's statement that he saw them there around the same time before the murder and then later.
Her description of the sexual assault and murder matched details she could not have known at the time.
Sollecito withdrew her alibi voluntarily on the night of the 5th.
Her description of Meredith's death beside the wardrobe to the housemates matched the spot of the fatal blow and she could not have known this.
They ruled she scrubbed Meredith's blood off her body which could not have been an accidental or innocent transfer of blood or she would have mentioned it to the postal police.
The staged burglary and the evidence of Guede running out of the house with runners still on his feet, while bare footed footprints in blood were found.
The complete nonsense of Guede returning to the scene to lock the door and clean the floors.
The fact that valuable items were left completely untouched.

You persist in using discredited evidence to bolster your argument. Curatolo's evidence was dismissed as being wholly unreliable. He was a heroin addict who didn't appear to know what day of the week it was that he saw them (disco bus reference). The staged burglary was also rejected by the Supreme Court since there was evidence that Guede did in fact enter the house through the window; the cut on his hand, his blood on glass shards and glass fragment in Kercher's room.

The statement she made may well have been wholly constructed by the Perugia division of We Frame it. The parallels with other similar 'confessions' (such as by the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four) later proven to be untrue are striking. Any statement made without the presence of a lawyer has to be hugely discounted if not outright rejected. The initial statements (albeit later denied - see a pattern here?) by Lumumba of the treatment he received after his arrest are instructive in this regard.

There are certainly questions arising from that confession. But since the structure of the case was built on the quicksand of a confession made without the benefit of a lawyer's advice, we can't truly give it any weight, regardless of how many courts persisted in so doing.

There's a reason that police must carry out interrogations in an open and transparent manner and that's to ensure that anything so obtained will have value in court and that defendant's are protected against intimidation and torture; be that physical or mental.

We can harbour as many suspicions as we want, but as the Court of Cassation said in their summing up: there was so much cojntradiction and poor procedure that there could never be a conviction beyond reasonable doubt (I'm paraphrasing what I quoted earlier).

The presumption of innocence has to mean something if we're to call ourselves civilised and enlightened.

Means Of Escape

brickmauser wrote: »

Show us what you got? What do you have that proves Knox and Sollecito are guilty? You have nothing. If there was something both would be in jail.

The incompetence of the police force in their investigations has kept them out of jail

CMOTDibbler

Means Of Escape wrote: »

The incompetence of the police force in their investigations has kept them out of jail

Who, the police?

Joking obviously. I'd have to agree that their incompetence destroyed the case. I think I quoted what the judges said about that above.

Cianmcliam

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

You persist in using discredited evidence to bolster your argument. Curatolo's evidence was dismissed as being wholly unreliable. He was a heroin addict who didn't appear to know what day of the week it was that he saw them (disco bus reference). The staged burglary was also rejected by the Supreme Court since there was evidence that Guede did in fact enter the house through the window; the cut on his hand, his blood on glass shards and glass fragment in Kercher's room.

The statement she made may well have been wholly constructed by the Perugia division of We Frame it. The parallels with other similar 'confessions' (such as by the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four) later proven to be untrue are striking. Any statement made without the presence of a lawyer has to be hugely discounted if not outright rejected. The initial statements (albeit later denied - see a pattern here?) by Lumumba of the treatment he received after his arrest are instructive in this regard.

There are certainly questions arising from that confession. But since the structure of the case was built on the quicksand of a confession made without the benefit of a lawyer's advice, we can't truly give it any weight, regardless of how many courts persisted in so doing.

There's a reason that police must carry out interrogations in an open and transparent manner and that's to ensure that anything so obtained will have value in court and that defendant's are protected against intimidation and torture; be that physical or mental.

We can harbour as many suspicions as we want, but as the Court of Cassation said in their summing up: there was so much cojntradiction and poor procedure that there could never be a conviction beyond reasonable doubt (I'm paraphrasing what I quoted earlier).

The presumption of innocence has to mean something if we're to call ourselves civilised and enlightened.

Aha, I see where you have gone wrong!

I think you might be reading the Supreme Court judgement incorrectly.

The listed reasons at the start of the document are actually the defence reasons for appeal, are you reading the defence arguments as if they were findings of the court? They are not. These don't start until they use the actual number system later on in the document, after pg 18 or so.

There they are certain the burglary was staged.
They say Curatolo's statements could not prove certainty nor can be taken with unconditional trust, but they do not dismiss them totally as Hellman did.

I can't find any mention in any of the court documents of Guede's blood on glass in the room with the staged burglary, where is this mentioned?

Harvey Normal

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Aha, I see where you have gone wrong!

I think you might be reading the Supreme Court judgement incorrectly.

The listed reasons at the start of the document are actually the defence reasons for appeal, are you reading the defence arguments as if they were findings of the court? They are not. These don't start until they use the actual number system later on in the document, after pg 18 or so.

There they are certain the burglary was staged.
They say Curatolo's statements could not prove certainty nor can be taken with unconditional trust, but they do not dismiss them totally as Hellman did.

I can't find any mention in any of the court documents of Guede's blood on glass in the room with the staged burglary, where is this mentioned?

If the burglary was staged why is Guede still in jail for a non staged burglary?

Cianmcliam

Harvey Normal wrote: »

If the burglary was staged why is Guede still in jail for a non staged burglary?

He was charged and convicted of participating in a murder with others.

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Aha, I see where you have gone wrong!

I think you might be reading the Supreme Court judgement incorrectly.

The listed reasons at the start of the document are actually the defence reasons for appeal, are you reading the defence arguments as if they were findings of the court? They are not. These don't start until they use the actual number system later on in the document, after pg 18 or so.

There they are certain the burglary was staged.
They say Curatolo's statements could not prove certainty nor can be taken with unconditional trust, but they do not dismiss them totally as Hellman did.

I know which parts are which. I reckon that since you seem to feel free to bring up evidence that was later discredited by the Supreme Court of Cassation, why can't I? And as you say, it wasn't exactly discredited either.

Harvey Normal

Cianmcliam wrote: »

He was charged and convicted of participating in a murder with others.

No he wasn't.

CMOTDibbler

Just on the subject of the confession, Douglas Preston is an author who ran afoul of Mignini about a year before the Meredith Kercher murder and was forced to leave Italy as a result. It's only a minute and a half. There are other more lengthy videos on YouTube giving more details of the 'case'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WebQA41RA48

Cianmcliam

Harvey Normal wrote: »

No he wasn't.

Go on....

Cianmcliam

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Just on the subject of the confession, Douglas Preston is an author who ran afoul of Mignini about a year before the Meredith Kercher murder and was forced to leave Italy as a result. It's only a minute and a half. There are other more lengthy videos on YouTube giving more details of the 'case'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WebQA41RA48

Mignini wasn't even there when she confessed, they only contacted him after the first confession which she then repeated to him. The translator gave testimony that Amanda was not hounded or abused by anyone, in fact she was presented with a text from Patrick which she had not mentioned and then started to crack pretty dramatically after that.

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Mignini wasn't even there when she confessed, they only contacted him after the first confession which she then repeated to him. The translator gave testimony that Amanda was not hounded or abused by anyone, in fact she was presented with a text from Patrick which she had not mentioned and then started to crack pretty dramatically after that.

How do you know this?

No transcripts were taken, by the police's own admission and the interviews were not recorded.

Cianmcliam

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

How do you know this?

No transcripts were taken, by the police's own admission and the interviews were not recorded.

The translator who the police called in to interpret the interview gave testimony at the Massei case where she accounted for everyone there, the police also did the same. I'm sure Amanda gave the same account sometime later.

Cianmcliam

From Nencini:
"It appears from the summary documents that those present were Chief of Police, Inspector Rita Ficarra, and Assistant Chiefs of Police Lorrena Zugarini and Ivano Raffo, assisted by Mrs. Anna Donnino, acting as an interpreter. "

She confessed sometime before 1:45am

"At this point, the police stopped the interview and informed the investigating magistrate’s office of what had happened. The Assistant State Prosecutor of Perugia, in the person of Dr. Giuliano Mignini, then went to the police station, where at 5.45 am on the same day, 6 November 2007, Amanda Marie Knox made statements on record, in his presence. "

Means Of Escape

Time served to date by Knox would have satisfied any manslaughter conviction anyway with good behaviour if she was complicit
It is agreed that Guede was the main perpetrator of the crime but I do not believe that both were oblivious to what transpired in that room and knew nothing about it .

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

The translator who the police called in to interpret the interview gave testimony at the Massei case where she accounted for everyone there, the police also did the same. I'm sure Amanda gave the same account sometime later.

Cianmcliam wrote: »

From Nencini:
"It appears from the summary documents that those present were Chief of Police, Inspector Rita Ficarra, and Assistant Chiefs of Police Lorrena Zugarini and Ivano Raffo, assisted by Mrs. Anna Donnino, acting as an interpreter. "

She confessed sometime before 1:45am

"At this point, the police stopped the interview and informed the investigating magistrate’s office of what had happened. The Assistant State Prosecutor of Perugia, in the person of Dr. Giuliano Mignini, then went to the police station, where at 5.45 am on the same day, 6 November 2007, Amanda Marie Knox made statements on record, in his presence. "

Without a contamperaneous transcript, a recording or the presence of a lawyer, anything relating to this interrogation is unsafe and unsound.

You clearly have to see that. It is completely unreliable and was thrown out at a very early stage because of this.

The only reason for these omissions is to 'work over' the suspect without the possibility of any evidence of such.

Whether Mignini was present or not, the fact is that he used very similar techniques on Doug Preston and was subsequently convicted of exceeding the powers of his office and sentenced to 16 months. He appealed it and it was overturned on a technicality (lack of jurisdiction) and he remains in office.