Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[Sonata]

One of the first things people learn when researching anything is to discern between valid and non-valid sources. The dailymail tabloid is not a valid source of information. Whatever is published through that media source must be verified elsewhere. If it cannot be verified, chances are it is fiction rather than fact.

Yes, I cannot emphasise enough how unreliable that paper is...

 

[Fulcanelli]

Out of curiosity, as I'm not very clear on this, why wasn't he released when his shoerprints didn't match? How soon after was further evidence collected keeping him behind bars?

Because his shoeprints were never absolutely excluded (but tenuously excluded...as I said, he was given the benefit of the doubt), he had lied to the police and was refusing to speak to the ILE further, he had no alibi as that also transpired to be a lie, Knox herself had stated she couldn't be sure if he was there or not, they had two witnesses that placed him at or near the crime scene and then they found his bloody footprint on Meredith's bath mat and in the corridor. Then, they found his DNA on the bra clasp.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli, I recently brought up that Stefanoni said on the stand that nothing was brought into the murder room by her team, yet on video we see them bringing the mop from the closet, inexplicably, into her room. This seems to be a clear-cut lie. It seems undebatable that she has lied on the stand. It seems there was also some bending of the truth when it came to the Luminol prints and blood testing.

Why, was it left in the murder room? Did it make contact with any surfaces in the room? It was wrapped wasn't it?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Coming from the Dailymail, I'm surprised they didn't say that a pink-blooded alien exploded in the bathroom. It's a tabloid. The prosecutor's office is not responsible for tabloid fiction.

otto,

Judy Bachrach's 2008 article in Vanity Fair implied that Ms. Knox lied, writing, "She had found the bathroom she shared with Meredith smeared with so much blood it looked as though a butcher had attempted washing up and then given up the task. Amanda was puzzled. 'It seemed a bit strange to me for the simple reason that all us girls are pretty clean and neat, and we clean up the bathroom,' she later reflected."

 

[Fulcanelli]

Who is this "expert of experts"? Hellman or Massei?

Both are, within their own court/process. It does not mean infallible, each trial is part of an extended process each forming its part on the role of achieving the ultimate goal which is arriving at 'truth'. No one part of the process is supposed to be an absolute in and of itself.

 

[Fulcanelli]

SkewedView,

After reading Benjamin Sayagh's article "Arrested Abroad," I came to think that Italy's precautionary detention law was seriously flawed. Now I think it is worse. That is truly mind-boggling.
ETA
Does this run afoul of any treaties or international agreements to which Italy is a party?

All systems have a form of precautionary detention.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Ahhh...now I see what your source is. <modsnip>.

So we should dismiss the work of one of the foremost researchers in false confessions just because a link to his work can be found on a pro-innocence site? That, precisely, makes no sense.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Thanks. I thought I had read this, and that's why I do not understand why in court the prosecution is saying that C&V should have retested it. If there was no blood and no cellular material, what were they supposed to retest?

Because there was cellular material, as we heard in court, they just claimed there wasn't in their report (they lied).

I guess you missed my earlier post where I explained all of this.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I understand that you find Curatola a compelling and believable witness, but I personally find him useless. Minor details, such as getting someone's tie color incorrect is not a reason to reject someone's testimony. But remembering people dressed in costumes, and disco buses is not minor, IMHO:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8601-500202_162-20047813-2.html?assetTypeId=30

Judge: So, you saw Amanda and Raffaele?


Curatolo: Yeah, it was Halloween when I saw them. I know this because I saw the kids getting on the disco buses all dressed up in costumes. That’s how I also know what time it was.

Judge: When is Halloween?


Curatolo: I don't know. Maybe end of October or beginning of November, I think.

Judge: You aren’t sure? What about your case now? You are in prison, correct? How long will you be there?

Curatolo: I don’t know. I don’t understand the case against me really. I understand nothing.

Judge: Ok, so how did you live in the park? Were you always there?

Curatolo: Always, yes. I never left. I just lived there. On a bench mostly.

(questions regarding where Toto poops omitted)

Judge: Never mind. So, are you certain the buses were disco buses and not tour buses?

Curatolo: Yes, definitely disco buses. They look different from other buses.

Prosecutio*n: No, no, you must be mistaken?

Curatolo: No. I am certain they were disco buses.

Judge: Do you take drugs?

Curatolo: Yes, heroin.

Judge: Were you taking drugs on that night?

Curatolo: I always take drugs, so most certainly I was high that night…but that’s ok. heroin does not make you hallucinat*e or anything.

I would respond to that, but I don't recognise CBS as a valid source in regard to this case (for very good reason). Where I you, I'd take anything they print pertaining to anything to to do with this case with a very large pinch of salt.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Proponents of the use of LCN DNA recommend continue the testing procedures anyways even if the sampled area comes up negative in the quantification step, which is what PS did in the first place. While this strikes me as being a rather irresponsible practice, it is a common enough procedure that the prosecution could justify calling for such a thing - had they not agreed with the decision of the Independent Experts previously, that is.

1. They didn't call for it over a 'missing step', they called for it because DNA was found on the knife but C Y V didn't test it. This was heard in court. <modsnip>

C & V found DNA on the knife blade but then didn't test it to extract a profile. This was heard on the stand in court.

2. They had not agreed with the independent experts previously.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I believe they prosecution was wanting the experts to test to find DNA with more sensitive instruments (then test it, if found), the report indicates that not only no DNA was found on the knife blade, but the blood tests were negative, and there was not cells found from skin, blood, or tissue in a second test, just some granular particles determined to be starch.

This on a sample that the prosecution claimed used up the entire thing in one run. So the prosecution request amounts to a fishing expedition.

The reason C&V found those extra peaks is because they finally got the raw data the defense had been asking for and did not get.

And it was not deceit, it is like picking a card hand from a full deck when a sample is that mixed with profiles from many different people. It does not surprise me in the least.

ETA. SkewedView's opinion on this is also a good possibility. Continue with the test even if no DNA was found. Still a fishing expedition with no evidence the fish will be biting.

No.

The prosecution were wanting somebody...'anybody' to test the DNA that C & V had FOUND but had not bothered to extract a profile from, despite having the equipment to do so.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Also Fulcanelli,
I would like to see your cite for the claim that C&V lied, or that any of the experts objected to C&V not proceeding with further testing at the time.

It's all posted up you know where. I spent two days posting all that stuff up, translated, so that people like you could read it, I'm not doing it again here because you didn't bother.

 

[Fulcanelli]

again, looking for independent corroberation of the facts on this, but thanks.

The corroboration is the Massei Report. Read it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

There is no degree of respect. One either respects or one does not respect, so there is no question of "what."

It is not logical for Hellmann to choose experts that he did not or does not respect. Whether he agrees with their findings doesn't change whether he respects them. I'm not sure why you'd assert that he didnt respect them to be telling him the truth to the best of their ability. And not sure what logical reason he'd use to appoint people to this task that he could not respect enough to believe their assessment. Belief is up to him and his jury, but I'm really not following the logic behind him not respecting experts he appointed himself.

Sorry, I didn't realise we were indulging in pedantry about whether he respected them as 'people' or professionals or not. I thought we were talking about important relevant stuff like whether he respects their findings and judgments or not. My mistake.

 

[sherlockh]

sherlockh,

Amanda did testify. I have read that it is not always in the best interests of defendants to testify, even when they are innocent. Given Comodi's ability to bring up a nonexistent telephone call to make Amanda look bad, I can understand the concept. From what I have heard, a covered body is the sign of an inexperienced killer, not necessarily a female killer. I am not sure what you mean by an alibi lie with respect to Amanda, unless you mean the interrogation of 5-6 November.

Covering of the body is a sign that the murderer is close to the victim. In the Jonbenet Ramsey case there was FBI profiling done on that. In that case it was a family member, in this case a 'friend'.

I don't really keep count with the lies and contradictions. There is a whole chapter on it in the Massei Report. Here are some:

At first she tried to move her dinner time backwards to fit the time of the murder, she tried to explain the night away with 'watching movies', she claimed amnesia because of smoking, perhaps sending emails, perhaps this or that, and oh she was in the kitchen hearing Lumumba murder her roommate. Then again she was probably with Raf and they were sitting on his bed telling each other life stories. Problem is eyewitnesses Curatolo and Rudy place them elsewhere. She had a nice long night of sleep but somebody touched the computer at 1am and turned it on for half an hour starting at 5:30am. She got up at 10am, but was seen earlier by a shop owner. She took a shower in a bloody bathroom but her hair that morning looks anything but showered. I probably forget a few things

Her different stories are not a secret. We have seen quotes of Rafs father mentioning the strange girl telling 5 or 6 different stories, Amanda's own lawyer stating she told 3 different stories, and of course Raf saying Amanda told him to tell a bunch of crap.

If it is all just a simple misunderstanding then they must testify. Amanda only testified in the Lumumba trial, so avoiding all kinds of questions about the murder night. Raf didn't answer any questions at all. Innocent people don't always testify but usually they do. Here we have 2 people who claim it is all just a misunderstanding but they refuse to answer questions. I don't see how it is not in their best interest to clear up this confusion. Big red flag. JMO.

 

[Fulcanelli]

That's also not true that the witnesses have people to support their testimony. They contradict other witnesses, but as Mass stated, he chose to believe them, namely Nara, anyway. The bum contradicts Nara in that he hears no scream at all. Neither do other street witnesses or the other ear witness. Additionally, Nara doesn't know what day it was and in fact sees a newspaper that couldn't yet exist the next morning. Even in seeing this nonexistent newspaper and then seeing the unfolding crime scene (also right outside her window), she doesn't bother to walk across and tell the police of this dredful scream she'd heard only 15 hours or so earlier. The way she describes the scream, it seems that it wouldn't be forgettable. In fact, hearing a scream like that, she should have called the police immediately, but maybe she, like RG, had no phone.

Even RG contradicts her in his earlier statements. He tells of a scream, himself. IIRC, he's the only other person to do it, but he says MK died between 920 and 930, which logically fits the rest of the evidence.

I am unaware of AK and RS's "repeated lies." there have been a few, but not repeated.

No. Witnesses have the prima face right to be believed, unless and until something is offered to discredit them.

Sorry, I don't get any of this criticism on what she 'should' have done on hearing the scream (being made by people who weren't there and didn't hear it). I'm sure that you think that this old lady who was all alone should have sprinted down the stairs and jumped into a telephone box to emerge in her superwoman outfit and then go and save the day (from the terrible threat of the scream) but this is the real world.

All that matters is the fact and that fact is there was a scream. The fact of the scream was corroborated by another witness. What Nara could, should or might have done is irrelevant

 

[Fulcanelli]

In PS's case, I have to say that her job and reputation depending upon what she testified to. As for the other experts on the prosecution side, I honestly do not know that every single one of them works for the government. Is that true? they were not independent experts hired for the case? I only know about PS, not the rest. what I know from her, she investigated the case, took the swabs, and even wrapped the mop, so I think that when her team announced 5 days into the case that it was solved, she felt the pressure for her work to prove that. Not commission, but motivation all the same.

Her job is to find the truth and then testify to the truth of it. Period.

It was not Dr Stefanoni's team that announced the case was solved, she was with the Polizia Scientifica. It is irrelevant to her what other departments may do or announce. They have their job, she has hers. They answer to their boss, she answers to hers.

 

[Sonata]

Covering of the body is a sign that the murderer is close to the victim. In the Jonbenet Ramsey case there was FBI profiling done on that. In that case it was a family member, in this case a 'friend'.

I don't really keep count with the lies and contradictions. There is a whole chapter on it in the Massei Report. Here are some:

At first she tried to move her dinner time backwards to fit the time of the murder, she tried to explain the night away with 'watching movies', she claimed amnesia because of smoking, perhaps sending emails, perhaps this or that, and oh she was in the kitchen hearing Lumumba murder her roommate. Then again she was probably with Raf and they were sitting on his bed telling each other life stories. Problem is eyewitnesses Curatolo and Rudy place them elsewhere. She had a nice long night of sleep but somebody touched the computer at 1am and turned it on for half an hour starting at 5:30am. She got up at 10am, but was seen earlier by a shop owner. She took a shower in a bloody bathroom but her hair that morning looks anything but showered. I probably forget a few things

Her different stories are not a secret. We have seen quotes of Rafs father mentioning the strange girl telling 5 or 6 different stories, Amanda's own lawyer stating she told 3 different stories, and of course Raf saying Amanda told him to tell a bunch of crap.

If it is all just a simple misunderstanding then they must testify. Amanda only testified in the Lumumba trial, so avoiding all kinds of questions about the murder night. Raf didn't answer any questions at all. Innocent people don't always testify but usually they do. Here we have 2 people who claim it is all just a misunderstanding but they refuse to answer questions. I don't see how it is not in their best interest to clear up this confusion. Big red flag. JMO.

The JonBenet Ramsay case was never solved.

 

[Fulcanelli]

That's not corroberation of Nara's testimony, and it's not corroberation of Curatolo's. Was this owner there all night, watching Curatolo? If so, then said owner must have testified to also seeing RS and AK. If the owner was not there all night, then Curatolo has the same alibi AK and RS do.

It's corroboration of Curatolo's testimony. It puts him where he said he was, when he said he was. The Kiosk owner wasn't in line of sight of RS and AK, but was of Curatolo. The Kiosk owner was there throighout the whole evening (including all the times relevant to this case).

What's Nara got to do with it?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Italy is certainly not as liberal as Florida in terms of making information available to the public, but it seems that some information is available at different stages of a trial. When you refer to the pink bathroom photo, how was that false? Surely no one thought that pink powder was blood! Prosecutors all over the world will release any information they deem useful in gathering information at any stage of an investigation. The information they release does not have to be factual. Reporters should check facts before running with a story. Reporters should know this.

Oh yes, the Sunshine Laws. Didn't do Casey Anthony any harm, did they?