Amanda Knox Is Innocent

[ymu]

Ive read a number of sources including Judge Massei's sentencing report. (link below) What is your point. If there is anything I have posted that is factually incorrect please feel free to correct me.
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=286&p=63343

Just clicked this link as a shortcut to the report, and it isn't the Massei report. That is a google translate version of the Micheli report, which is indeed unintelligible - not surprised you are reluctant to read it! The Micheli report is Rudy Guede's trial report. The Massei report is the Knox/Sollecito one. The pathology details aren't very different as far as I know, but the Massei report has been translated by human beings and is a lot more readable. You can download it from here: http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/TheMasseiReport.pdf

 

[Miss Caphat]

The judge's report hasn't been published yet, and won't be for some weeks. Until it has, you cannot say what evidence has been discredited or why. They have only commented specifically on the DNA evidence so far. They may explain why they disagree with the Court of Cassation (the Italian Supreme Court, which turned down Guede's final appeal) about the 'lone wolf' theory, or they might state that there were other attackers but that those attackers have not been identified. You don't know and neither does anyone else, apart from the judges and the jury and their administrative assistants.

Then by that same logic there is no point in your arguments either, or the fact that you keep sending people to the report.

 

[ymu]

Are you saying that the pathology evidence has been disputed? Perhaps there actually were 47 stab wounds as you, and then dylans repeatedly claimed ...

 

[Miss Caphat]

oh, please. give it a rest.

 

[dylans]

Where on earth do you think your experts got their evidence from if not from the court proceedings?

The fact that the court proceedings were flawed does not mean the pathology evidence was flawed and, if it was flawed, your experts' account is of no value either. Come on, this is desperate stuff.

They examined the forensic evidence, photographs of the crime scene, the procedures followed by the forensic investigators, the conclusions reached, the logic used to come to those conclusions etc.
What you are saying is these critical investigations and accounts are of no value because they are not direct court sources and only the original sentencing report has value. Ok, lets consider that for a moment. In almost every case of miscarriage of justice that I know of, the truth has emerged from independant sources often against the official record of events. The truth in the Birmingham 6 case was revealed by Chris Mullen. a journalist who doggedly pursued the truth for decades and involved the independant scientific replication and discrediting of the entire forensic procedure (known as the Greiss test) used by the police forensic teams and accepted as correct by the courts.The truth in the Guildford 4 and Maguire case was revealed by lawyer Gareth Peirce who actually had to find documents that were deliberately kept from the court and from the defence by the prosecution. In these and other cases it was precisely a rejection of the official record that found the truth. If your logic had been applied to these cases the truth would never have emerged. You would have rejected Chris Mullen's book and dismissed him and the scientists he relied on as a "so called experts"

Now you are insisting that only the sentencing report from the original trial has value. Correct me if I am wrong but you are no longer arguing that the original convictions are correct are you? You do accept that original convictions of Knox and Sollecito were incorrect and a miscarriage of justice don't you? Or are you arguing that the original conviction was sound and therefore the appeals court decision is wrong? If it is the former, then you also accept that the original sentencing report, the one you insist is the only document of value, is false. If it is the latter then you are arguing that the appeals court decision is incorrect. They can't both be correct, to accept one you have to recognise that the other is wrong. So which one is wrong? The appeals court decision annuls the original sentencing report and rejects its conclusions. We haven't had opportunity to see the appeal court documents explaining their decision yet but we don't need to read the reasoning behind it to know that it rejects the conclusions of the original trial. It has rejected it in the most spectacular way possible, by releasing the two people convicted by it. Of course, that hasn't stopped you rejecting every other account of events except the one document that has now been thrown out by the appeals court and proved to be in error.

Two or three days ago, you and your fellow travellers were arguing vehemently that the original court decision was entirely correct and that the absurd and ridiculous prosecution charges of drug fuelled orgies and pot fuelled sex games gone wrong were entirely reasonable. Now we know that the court has rejected that story as a fabrication and ruled that the convictions were unreliable. If the appeals court had confirmed that miscarriage of justice you and your like would be arguing that line today. But the appeals court has rejected it and released the pair, now you want to move the goal posts, now you want to argue that "persons unknown" did the killing. The one thing you absolutely refuse to countenance is the obvious, that this was a simple and mundane and grubby sexual attack and murder by one man, the same man who is convicted for the crime

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

...and the guy they have already convicted, has a history that suggests he is a psychopath?

Sort of, yes. Hasn't he admitted it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15177942

During a separate earlier trial, Rudy Guede was convicted of Miss Kercher's murder for his role in the killing and sentenced to 30 years in prison. On appeal, his conviction was upheld but his sentence reduced to 16 years. A lawyer for Guede said on Tuesday he would seek a retrial.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Why? Do you think that if she'd been "high" enough, she might have killed someone? You believe that marijuana has the potential to cause murder?

What nonsense you spout.

Point me to where I said any of that? I was trying to account for her seeming lack of memory Phil, there is nothing nonsensical about that. Stop trying to put words into my mouth.

 

[Ae589]

It does seem utterly bizarre that she 'imagined' being in the house and witnessing the murder. But people confess to all sorts of things under sustained inquisition. It never suggests to me that that person is hiding guilt on its own.

 

[ymu]

They examined the forensic evidence, photographs of the crime scene, the procedures followed by the forensic investigators, the conclusions reached, the logic used to come to those conclusions etc.
What you are saying is these critical investigations and accounts are of no value because they are not direct court sources and only the original sentencing report has value. Ok, lets consider that for a moment. In almost every case of miscarriage of justice that I know of, the truth has emerged from independant sources often against the official record of events. The truth in the Birmingham 6 case was revealed by Chris Mullen. a journalist who doggedly pursued the truth for decades and involved the independant scientific replication and discrediting of the entire forensic procedure (known as the Greiss test) used by the police forensic teams and accepted as correct by the courts.The truth in the Guildford 4 and Maguire case was revealed by lawyer Gareth Peirce who actually had to find documents that were deliberately kept from the court and from the defence by the prosecution. In these and other cases it was precisely a rejection of the official record that found the truth. If your logic had been applied to these cases the truth would never have emerged. You would have rejected Chris Mullen's book and dismissed him and the scientists he relied on as a "so called experts"

Now you are insisting that only the sentencing report from the original trial has value. Correct me if I am wrong but you are no longer arguing that the original convictions are correct are you? You do accept that original convictions of Knox and Sollecito were incorrect and a miscarriage of justice don't you? Or are you arguing that the original conviction was sound and therefore the appeals court decision is wrong? If it is the former, then you also accept that the original sentencing report, the one you insist is the only document of value, is false. If it is the latter then you are arguing that the appeals court decision is incorrect. They can't both be correct, to accept one you have to recognise that the other is wrong. So which one is wrong? The appeals court decision annuls the original sentencing report and rejects its conclusions. We haven't had opportunity to see the appeal court documents explaining their decision yet but we don't need to read the reasoning behind it to know that it rejects the conclusions of the original trial. It has rejected it in the most spectacular way possible, by releasing the two people convicted by it. Of course, that hasn't stopped you rejecting every other account of events except the one document that has now been thrown out by the appeals court and proved to be in error.

Two or three days ago, you and your fellow travellers were arguing vehemently that the original court decision was entirely correct and that the absurd and ridiculous prosecution charges of drug fuelled orgies and pot fuelled sex games gone wrong were entirely reasonable. Now we know that the court has rejected that story as a fabrication and ruled that the convictions were unreliable. If the appeals court had confirmed that miscarriage of justice you and your like would be arguing that line today. But the appeals court has rejected it and released the pair, now you want to move the goal posts, now you want to argue that "persons unknown" did the killing. The one thing you absolutely refuse to countenance is the obvious, that this was a simple and mundane and grubby sexual attack and murder by one man, the same man who is convicted for the crime

I want to know why you refused to even read the pathology evidence presented in court before relying on a document from one of the many troofer sites which have sprung up around this case, especially given the exaggerated and false claims you made about the nature of the wounds on the body.

The acquittal of Knox and Sollecito was near inevitable given the doubts raised about the physical evidence, and I sincerely hope it was a correct acquittal, but that has no bearing on the 'lone wolf' theory. It is extremely unlikely that Guede acted alone, and it is possible that he is telling the truth (in his original story - I don't think he ever recognised either Knox or Sollecito at the scene).

The Kerchers still need answers, and they won't get that by just shrugging off all the evidence that Guede was not alone.

If he did break in, you have to dismiss the evidence that the break-in was staged AND explain how he managed to have a dump in the large bathroom at one end of the flat before killing Meredith in her bedroom at the other. You haven't even looked at the evidence, let alone addressed it, so your overblown rhetoric is of no value. You're lifting your stuff straight off the pro-Knox sites and hysterical media coverage instead of trying to establish what is and is not in the witness statements. Pointless.

 

[dylans]

I want to know why you refused to even read the pathology evidence presented in court before relying on a document from one of the many troofer sites which have sprung up around this case, especially given the exaggerated and false claims you made about the nature of the wounds on the body.

The acquittal of Knox and Sollecito was near inevitable given the doubts raised about the physical evidence, and I sincerely hope it was a correct acquittal, but that has no bearing on the 'lone wolf' theory. It is extremely unlikely that Guede acted alone, and it is possible that he is telling the truth (in his original story - I don't think he ever recognised either Knox or Sollecito at the scene).

The Kerchers still need answers, and they won't get that by just shrugging off all the evidence that Guede was not alone.

If he did break in, you have to dismiss the evidence that the break-in was staged AND explain how he managed to have a dump in the large bathroom at one end of the flat before killing Meredith in her bedroom at the other. You haven't even looked at the evidence, let alone addressed it, so your overblown rhetoric is of no value. You're lifting your stuff straight off the pro-Knox sites and hysterical media coverage instead of trying to establish what is and is not in the witness statements. Pointless.

Yawn. You are getting really boring now. All I have done, again and again and again is pose one very simple question. I will ask it for the last time. How is it possible for a group of killers to take part in a bloody stabbing murder, holding down the person who is being stabbed to death, bleeding and struggling for her life without leaving a single piece of evidence of their presence at the scene? Not a hair, not a flake of skin, not a smear or fingerprint or palmprint or footprint.Not a scrap of DNA.Not a single piece of evidence of their presence at the scene?

It is a very simple question and it doesn't matter if the victim was stabbed once or a hundred times. It doesn't matter if she was raped or not. The question remains the same. It is simply impossible for multiple attackers to have been at the scene and actively taken part in that murder without leaving ANY sign of their presence in that bedroom. IMPOSSIBLE. There was evidence of the presence of one of the attackers of course, the guy who did it. Rudy Guede and he is all over the crime scene. His fingerprints, his dna, his footprints, his palm prints are all there. And they are there for one very simple reason, he was there and he was alone. It is a very simple question and I don't need to have an indepth understanding of every detail of the court case, every witness statement or a PHD in forensic science to ask it. would you like to answer it?

 

[ymu]

That's precisely the issue. Guede's story fits all the physical evidence. The 'lone wolf' theory does not. I don't know whether or not he is telling the truth, but I do know that they have not got to the bottom of this case.

I have no idea why you are so passionate about the miscarriage of justice in the Knox/Sollecito case yet so dismissive of the possible miscarriage of justice in Guede's case and/or finding those who were there with him. You seem to have picked a side without taking any interest whatsoever in the evidence.

 

[dylans]

Its the lack of evidence that interests me. The lack of evidence of anyone else at the crime scene. Guede is guilty. His story is a common excuse used by rapists and murderers. He was invited in, contact was consensual and a mystery man did the killing while he was in the bathroom with a bad tummy. It's bollocks. There is direct evidence of his presence at the murder scene(his bloody palm prints were on the pillow) and zero evidence of the presence of anyone else. Which as i point out above is simply impossible

 

[Ranbay]

you either remove all DNA or none, you can't only remove your DNA and leave someone elses.... this is what lots of people seem to not get.

 

[dylans]

you either remove all DNA or none, you can't only remove your DNA and leave someone elses.... this is what lots of people seem to not get.

That's right. The idea that the mysterious killers somehow removed all forensic evidence of their presence, every fibre, every hair, every scrap of dna, every fingerprint, every blood stained palm or footprint, while miraculously leaving all the evidence of Guedes presence, is simply absurd.

 

[ymu]

It is a common story, but that doesn't mean it cannot be true. If he staged the break-in, or broke in himself, why did he say the intruder(s) rang the doorbell? If he broke in himself, how did he manage to have a dump in the other bathroom before killing her? There's no trace of her blood in the other bathroom, or any of his bloody footprints leading to it.

There is no evidence of group enterprise in a sexual assault, which is maybe what you're getting so hung up on - few defensive wounds mean that there would not necessarily be any trace of the killer on the body, especially when it is impossible to test everything.

I don't know what the truth is, but there are masses of questions that need to be answered before it can be concluded that Guede acted alone. There's no such thing as justice in a case like this, but getting to the truth of what happened is the closest you can get and the best the family can hope for. You don't have to declare case closed in order to believe that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. I find your attitude bizarre.

 

[Orang Utan]

 

[Structaural]

That's precisely the issue. Guede's story fits all the physical evidence.

Well he had two weeks to come up with it and the Italian press publish the entire trial on a daily basis. Useful. Though he changed this story 3 times...

 

[Anudder Oik]

Its the lack of evidence that interests me. The lack of evidence of anyone else at the crime scene. Guede is guilty. His story is a common excuse used by rapists and murderers. He was invited in, contact was consensual and a mystery man did the killing while he was in the bathroom with a bad tummy. It's bollocks. There is direct evidence of his presence at the murder scene(his bloody palm prints were on the pillow) and zero evidence of the presence of anyone else. Which as i point out above is simply impossible

Agreed. It is an important issue to straighten out. You would think that as Knox lived there and her lamp was in the room of the murder, some of her DNA would have been around or even fingerprints would have turned up, but no.

The murder scene was tampered with. The body was moved and covered (The covering of a body is indicative of the victim being known by the killer) and hours after the murder, when the blood was congealed, the bra was cut from it.

Why? to stage a sexual assault?

Why would Guede stick around so long? To be caught? we are talking hours.

The defence has attacked the forensic proceedures and pointed to incompetence and malpractice, however, in the case of NOT finding Knox's DNA in the room, the same reasoning is not applied, ie, incompetence or less than thorough investigation and this is deemed as conclusive.

Could it be that the forensic team didn't do it's job properly or is that only when the evidence goes one way?

Cleaning up had gone on.

Guede would have absolutely no motive to stage a break in at a house he didn't live in and the break in "was" staged.

Edited to add: You ask again and again and rightly the same question about DNA in the murder room but avoid the rest of the house, the same as the defence appeal. At the time of the original trial, the DNA wasn't expelled by the defence's experts. Both K and S's defence teams had DNA experts on board.

Now, ask yourself this question as it is the same as yours.

Why no DNA on the bloody male bare foot print on the bathmat. Only the victim's DNA?

Why couldn't they get at that DNA and had to rely on trying to match it by appearance?

Does it mean the person who made the bloody footprint wasn't there?

 

[GB4]

Innocent? No way! Yesterday she got 3 years for trying to frame an innocent bloke, FFS! That seems to have been completely forgotten in all this. She only got out because she'd served that sentance.

Whatever happens, the yanks will not extradite her back to Italy now.

 

[Miss Caphat]

Cleaning up had gone on.

Guede would have absolutely no motive to stage a break in at a house he didn't live in and the break in "was" staged.

lololol. It obviously worked though, didn't it, if that is what happened? That's the whole reason we're even having this discussion, because it threw investigators off his track.

And there is no evidence that the place was cleaned. That is a theory, because luminol detects bleach and /or blood. By the way, luminol also detects several other substances, and therefore can't even be used as evidence in court.

 

[Anudder Oik]

lololol. It obviously worked though, didn't it, if that is what happened? That's the whole reason we're even having this discussion, because it threw investigators off his track.

And there is no evidence that the place was cleaned. That is a theory, because luminol detects bleach and /or blood. By the way, luminol also detects several other substances, and therefore can't even be used as evidence in court.

I will ignore the first part of your post as it is too facebooky for me.

As for the second part here is a paragraph straight from the Massei Report from the original case. Something you won't have seen in the dumbed down reporting state side.

Further confirmation is constituted by the fact that, after Meredith’s murder, it is clear that some traces were definitely eliminated, a cleaning activity was certainly carried out. In fact, the bare foot which, stained with blood, left its footprint on the sky-blue mat in the bathroom, could only have reached that mat by taking steps which should have left other footprints on the floor, also marked out in blood just like (in fact, most likely, with even more [blood], since they were created before the footprint printed on the mat) the one found on the mat itself. Of such other very visible footprints of a bloody bare foot, on the contrary, there is no trace.

Massei Report; http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/TheMasseiReport.pdf

You cannot possibly say that no cleaning happened when footprints leading to the bathroom were missing. You know, bathmat, footprint, footprint bathmat...in the bathroom across the hall..understand?

 

[Miss Caphat]

so, the attacker cleaned up his own footprints, probably washed his feet in the shower, put his shoes back on, didn't notice that they too had a little blood on them, and left.
since you guys are such experts on this case, do you know if any of the actual materials used in the cleaning were ever discovered? Towels, rags, etc? Did they search any of the suspects' homes for these things?

nice excuse for not answering my first question.
I'll say it again in a non-facebooky way.
Since it was primarily the evidence that points to a staged break-in which made investigators believe that more than one person had committed this crime, then why is it automatically assumed that Guede did not intentionally stage a break in after killing Kercher?

 

[goldenecitrone]

Well, let's all hope Knox is truly innocent and isn't wandering the States free with a taste for blood.

 

[dylans]

The fact that luminol picked picked up a positive blue on a footprint on the bath mat does not demonstrate that it was blood. Luminol doesn't show only blood, it also shows a number of other substances including bleach, you know, bleach, a common ingredient in cleaning products. The kind you clean bathrooms with. It is likely that anyone stepping out of a cleaned shower will have traces of such cleaning products on their feet. Luminol doesn't turn a different colour for different substances. It turns blue regardless of the substance being detected whether bleach, blood or toilet duck. On detection of a suspicious substance, then a test is done for blood and this was never done. Furthermore the fact that there were no footprints leading from the crime scene to the bathroom is not evidence of a clean up at all. Quite the opposite in fact, it is evidence that the footprint detected in the bathroom was entirely unrelated to the crime scene where remember no presence of any person except Guede was found.

Patrizia Stafanoni of the Polizia Scientifica, who perpetrated this debacle, instead tested only for DNA. Only for DNA? You are looking for blood and you get a hit that could be blood or any of a dozen different substances, including bleach, and you don’t test to see if you hit the jackpot? It begs the question of incompetence or intent.
But Patrizia was not deterred by logic and fact. In court, she said that she knew that the luminol stain was blood “…because of its color.” Every trained forensic investigator (except, apparently Stefanoni) knows that luminol glows blue. Only blue. Not a different shade of blue for different substances…just blue. What Stefanoni said, she knew to be false, or she was so incompetent that she should not have been allowed to destroy a crime scene.

What could have left the footprints, then? Among the many things that we know reacts very strongly to luminol is bleach. Even trace amounts of bleach will light-up luminol. Amanda told the police that she came home that morning, took a shower and then looked for roommates in the house. Amanda was in bare feet after leaving the shower. Showers are routinely cleaned with substances that contain bleach. The products are sprayed on the walls, and collect and pool invisibly on the shower floor. Therefore, it would be almost incomprehensible for her not to have minute traces of bleach substances on the soles of her feet after standing in a shower cleaned by a modern cleaning product. Remember, in Raffaele’s apartment, there were 14 luminol ‘hits’. And where were nine of them? In the bathroom. Outside the shower. And none were blood. I would postulate that nearly every person in America and Italy who stepped out of a sanitary shower today left luminol-detectable footprints; including Mignini and Stefanoni.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI6.html

The kind of blind certainty in the results of luminol testing reminds me very much of the claims of proof of explosives emerging from the (now discredited) Greiss tests for nitroglycerin used to convict the Birmingham 6 and others. Then too, positive results arising from common cleaning products were held up as proof positive of explosives and used to convict innocent people

 

[ymu]

The fact that luminol picked picked up a positive blue on a footprint on the bath mat does not demonstrate that it was blood.

Blah blah <pro-Knox site link> blah blah

You don't appear to know that the footprint on the bathmat wasn't cleaned up. You're launching these massive diatribes without being familiar with the most basic details of the evidence. It's fucking bizarre.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

you're all quite bizarre, quite frankly.

 

[goldenecitrone]

you're all quite bizarre, quite frankly.

Let 'em 'ave it, Paulie.

 

[Orang Utan]

I'm with Paulie. Bunch of busybody twats

 

[Diana9]

After all is said and done, it is interesting to note that the Italians, of all people, should understand the principle of "presumption of innocence" better than anyone, since its origins date back to ancient Rome.

Ammianus Marcellinus relates an anecdote of the Emperor Julian which illustrates the enforcement of this principle in the Roman law. Numerius, the governor of Narbonensis, was on trial before the Emperor, and, contrary to the usage in criminal cases, the trial was public. Numerius contented himself with denying his guilt, and there was not sufficient proof against him. His adversary, Delphidius, "a passionate man," seeing that the failure of the accusation was inevitable, could not restrain himself, and exclaimed, "Oh, illustrious Caesar! if it is sufficient to deny, what hereafter will become of the guilty?" to which Julian replied, "If it suffices to accuse, what will become of the innocent?" Rerum Gestarum, L. XVIII, c. 1. The rule thus found in the Roman law was, along with many other fundamental and humane maxims of that system, preserved for mankind by the canon law. Decretum Gratiani de Presumptionibus, L. II, T. XXIII, c. 14, A.D. 1198; [***492] Corpus Juris Canonici Hispani et Indici, R.P. Murillo Velarde, Tom. 1, L. II, n. 140.

from: The History of the Presumption of Innocence

 

[Lock&Light]

After all is said and done, it is interesting to note that the Italians, of all people, should understand the principle of "presumption of innocence" better than anyone, since its origins date back to ancient Rome.

from: The History of the Presumption of Innocence

The Emperor Julian (also known as the Apostate) had very little to do with Italians. He ruled in Constantinople.