Amanda Knox’s appeal to the European Court of Human Rights over her mistreatment by the Italian authorities has been posted on HUDOC, the official ECHR website. This means that the submission has been accepted and the case will be considered. This is another step on the road to her complete exoneration and public acknowledgment of the abuse that she was subjected to during her interrogation and subsequent trials from 2007 onwards.
The submission also covers the Italian authorities’ lie to Amanda while she was in prison when she was falsely told that she had tested HIV positive in a further attempt to apply psychological pressure.
Knox was interrogated and arrested on the night of November 5th/6th 2007, just four days after the brutal murder of her friend and house mate, British student Meredith Kercher, in Perugia, Italy. Her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito was also interrogated and arrested at the same time. After a tortuous seven and a half year process, that included four years in jail, both were finally exonerated by Italy’s Supreme Court in March 2015.
Meredith Kercher was killed by local petty criminal Rudy Guede, who remains in prison. He was tried separately from Knox and Sollecito.
An Italian final ruling found Knox guilty of ‘calunnia’, or criminal slander for falsely accusing her former boss, local bar owner Patrick Lumumba of murdering Kercher. Her sentence for this crime was retrospectively increased to three years, in 2014, part of the time she had already served. It is this ruling that the European Court will be considering.
The interrogation that produced the accusation was carried out at night, without legal assistance for Knox (although she requested it) and without an independent interpreter. At the time her grasp of Italian was basic and a police interpreter told her that she was suppressing the truth because of traumatic amnesia. She was also hit on the head and denied food and drink and bathroom breaks although she was beginning a menstrual period. The police deny that Knox and Sollecito’s interrogations were recorded, although all other witness statements were taped at that stage of the investigation and their phones were bugged.
Knox was subsequently the defendant in a civil calunnia suit brought by the police she had accused of brutality. That case was finally dismissed earlier this year, so Italy now acknowledges that her consistent accusations of violent treatment were correct all along. This ruling has been noted by the European Court in Strasbourg and will form part of the case record.
The European Court only accepts a case when all domestic remedies have been exhausted. The Italian authorities never investigated Knox’s accusations of ill-treatment by the police, although they were pointed out by her several times during her trial process. Instead, they acquiesced in the further harassment brought about through the civil suit from the police officers.
Knox was further denied legal representation from the time of her arrest until minutes before her first formal appearance before a judge, several days later. At this hearing she was bound over to remain in prison for the major part of the following year before being charged and tried. This was a further violation of her rights under European law.
She was told of the false HIV test result whilst in prison awaiting trial, most likely as a trick to persuade her to reveal details of previous sexual partners whom the police believed might have included Kercher’s proven killer, Rudy Guede. Knox did produce such a list, which did not feature Guede. It was leaked to the media.
There will now be an interval, probably of several years, while the European Court seeks more information from Italy and clarifies details. At the end of this process, the court will make a judgment. Independent legal analysts have compared the case to several others with similar characteristics where rulings have gone against the countries involved.
Italy has the dubious distinction of being the Western European country with the highest number of negative judgments made against it by the European Court of Human Rights – and by a considerable margin. Many of its citizens have only secured justice after years of struggle when judges outside Italy have corrected multiple wrong decisions. Amanda Knox has taken her place in the international queue for justice.
* Technically it is not an appeal. A European ruling in favour of Amanda Knox’s submission will have to be followed by action within Italy to correct the injustice.
Happy to hear this. It was outright sick in the head what they did to her especially that HIV bs. If someone did that to me I would be making a visit and then they could put me in jail for an actual crime or two or three.
Another step towards final exoneration for Amanda Knox. Her treatment during the investigation by Italian authorities was despicable.
One more step towards VICTORY for Amanda. Her and Raffaele’s good names were cleared of murder, now it’s time to clear Amanda’s name of slander. Well done Nigel.
A good beginning, the acceptance is worth all the watching and patiently waiting for!
What doctors? The one prison official who lied to Amanda was not a doctor. What difference does it make that he said it could be a mistake? He still said they would have to test again to be sure. He still accomplished what he set out to do: He gave Amanda something to worry about, which caused her to list in her diary the men she had had sex with and which the prison officials later illegally confiscated from her as evidence.
DOH! She was told she had HIV. She did not HIV. They knew she did not have HIV. Therefore, they lied to her. The purpose was to put pressure on her and to get a list of her partners to leak to the media. This was taken as ‘evidence’ she was a murderer. In dismissing the slander case, the Italian court has found that her interrogation was illegal. In detail they described every wrong aspect of the interrogation.
No, she wasn’t, you know nothing of her, just using that phrase shows how sick you are. Witchhunters, your day will come.
couldn’t care less what it says, that proves nothing…but I guess you were her prison mate. You are a witchhunter exercising some old demon of yours, it oozes thru when you write. Hell awaits.
Why don’t you quote the diary, or better yet, provide a cite for the content of the diary. We all know the media created all kinds of salacious stories that were entirely untrue. My guess is you’re reading at one of the guilter sites or, worse still, referring to an old DM or other tabloid story.
Again, this prison official was NOT a doctor. And you have not explained what difference it made that he said it could be a mistake. Amanda goes on in her diary to say it was the worst experience in her life and that she didn’t want to die. It still remains that they illegally confiscated her diary after she contemplated which of her lovers could have given her HIV. It still remains that the prosecutor used this illegally obtained information as irrelevant evidence against her. What was a lie about saying this prison official who was not a doctor had falsely told her that she had HIV? He did tell her that. How does saying it could be a mistake take the words back that he has already said? He knew very well that it was not just a mistake, it was a calculated lie.
Krissy doesn’t care about truth or facts, she only cares about her/guilters version of what they THINK happened.
That is the thing about guliters, they care no one or nothing but themselves.
You don’t know Amanda Knox. And you have probably not followed her writings or facebook page, to even have a glimpse of that person, to get an idea of who she is. I have and do. By her writings and the way you write, I’d say you are the one who’s got serious issues.
That you still accuse Amanda of killing Meredith is a very good indicator of who YOU are. Your idea of lying is laughable.
Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Do you claim Amanda is guilty of murder?
What evidence do you have of Amanda lying?
You haven’t cited a single lie.
The ISC ruled there was no evidence of their involvement in the crime and they were acquitted. You continue to claim she is guilty, which is a lie. And because of this you often repeat other claims, such as her supposed lies, which are based on nothing more than your factually incorrect opinion of the crime.
Again, you should be looking in the mirror before you cast those stones.
The 50+ hours are clearly documented, both by the defense team and by police records. You pasting a guilter site interpretation of the hours is irrelevant. And she WAS led to believe she had amnesia per Anna Donnino.
So as I said, you apply a guilter spin to the truth and then claim this to be Amanda lying. She was questioned by the police for a total of over 50 hours and she was led to believe she was suffering amnesia due to traumatic stress. No lie in that video, but certainly a lie by you when you claim “Everything she says here is a lie”.
You can reference Amanda’s appeal document for dates and times that total 53.5 hours, Donnino’s testimony confirms her effort to convince Amanda of amnesia. These are official court records. What you posted was not from court records.
Can I just ask has a Court of Law ever returned a ruling which wrong, such as a false conviction or a false acquittal?
If so then it is right in such a serious crime, or any crime for that matter to question the ruling, even more so in this case given the circumstances of the previous Guilty verdicts in the proceedings.
I have no problem questioning a ruling but when an individual unequivocally claims someone is a murderer who got away with it when they can’t prove it and the judicial system says otherwise, then they are lying.
I would dispute your statement
I believe there are persons who have been acquitted of murder by the judicial system who are universally accepted by the general public of getting away with murder
I hate to be predictable but OJ Simpson , Casey Anthony and many more people
I’m pretty sure we’re on the same page with this. The distinction is one’s belief versus making a statement of fact. I’m fairly certain OJ murdered Nicole and Ron and I KNOW Casey Anthony is responsible at some level for Caylee’s death, but I have never said nor would I ever say either is a murderer.
In this case Soletrader4u made the statement that Amanda was a murderer who got away with it. Factually this is a lie. It’s an opinion that is not supported by the judicial system or the evidence. With OJ one can ask “if not OJ, then who?” With Casey Anthony one can argue she was her mother, she was the last known person to be with Caylee and her lies and deceptions were dramatic and over a protracted period of time. I might not be able to prove how Caylee died or whether her mother murdered her, but surely she should have been held accountable for her death at ‘some’ level. And unlike those other cases, this case already had someone who was convicted on overwhelming evidence.
Anyway, we’re beating a dead horse here. I only made the point because Soletrader4u challenged me to show where they had lied, so I did. And btw, I don’t consider it being predictable citing OJ and Casey Anthony. Those are two extreme cases of injustice that apparently everyone can relate to so it’s easy to make a point using them as a reference. It’s all good… 🙂
Had prosecutors in the Casey Anthony case stuck to the rule of law instead of grand standing for a bunch of Neanderthals wanting blood, she would be in prison for 20 years at the very least.
Your lips are moving.
My guess is you move your lips while typing. . Proof is in the acquittal sweetheart.
Why don’t you have time? You seem to have time to post hateful lies. What else are you doing with your life?
I don’t think you would know if someone is lying even if you were looking into a mirror. And judging from your posts not likely even then.
I have no interest in disproving all your lies. I did that for years to other silly guilter posters. When will you get it? Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent. They have always been innocent. ThIs witch hunt is over. The world knows this. Time to catch up.
I’m not embarrassed. I find it amusing that you have nothing better to do with your time than to troll the comment sections of Knox articles with fictitious bs. Maybe a better use would be to take up gardening or volunteer work. Maybe get out of the house and go for a hike or go out on a date. You know, they say there is someone for everyone so there is still hope for you .
The only person lying is you to yourself.
What are you talking about? Amanda was required to see the doctor numerous times, but the complaint she made is about a prison official posing as a doctor when he was not and deliberately telling her that she had HIV when she did not. So what would be the point of complaining to the Italian Medical Board about a non-doctor lying to her that she was HIV positive? And of course inmates know that letters going in and out of prison will be examined, but her diary was not a letter going in or out of the prison. The courts have already determined that it was illegal for the prison officials to confiscate it. What do you mean by “Knox nods to this in several places wherein she self-consciously expresses self-serving sentiments such as ‘Meredith didn’t deserve to die. Or ‘whoever did this.” Are you assuming that Amanda expected the prison officials to illegally confiscate her diary? How presumptuous of you. Amanda certainly did not anticipate her diary being used as evidence against her. So why would she think that her statements about Meredith would used for her benefit?
The Italian courts disagreed with you. Amanda was awarded compensation for her diary being illegally confiscated while she was in prison.
The court still forced the police to return it. So it was an illegal confiscation.
You can believe what you wish. The diary was illegally confiscated.
Of course it was. 4u has been dead wrong about everything regarding the Amanda Knox trial since day one. It will be satisfying to see this loser take it on the chin again. A&R are free and happy while 4u sits in mommy’s basement in denial.
It WAS a doctor. You’ve been fooled again!
I doubt very seriously that even a prison doctor would have committed such malpractice as falsely telling Amanda she was HIV positive. Also, she would have known who the prison doctor was, and this supposed “medic” was not that doctor. Guilters have made up enough false stories that I recognize this as just another lie.
Amanda’s own prison diary confirms it WAS a doctor.
Krissy, what motivates you to continue to pedal such lies and deceptions?
She was told he was a doctor and made note of that in her diary. Do you think she asked for his credentials or just accepted he was a doctor. What she wrote in her diary is irrelevant.
If you recall, Amanda also wrote about Raffaele lying about her and her confusion over why he would do that. Of course, we all know he didn’t lie, it was the police who were lying to Amanda. You beginning to see how this works?
What Amanda wrote in her diary was that the person demanding knowledge of her sex life was a doctor she had never seen before. The only way Amanda knew he was a doctor was because he said he was and was wearing a white lab coat. That doesn’t make him a doctor. Of course if that person really were a doctor, it’s actually worse. Doctors take a vow to do no harm, and to respect patient-doctor confidentiality. Whoever this fraud was, he violated this oath.
What’s interesting is that while the European Court of Human Rights does not reverse illegal convictions outright, it can prevail in forcing European courts into reversing those wrongful convictions.
This is awesome news! How many times did we hear that this would never happen from the guilters?
The same ones who said she would serve 30 years.
Yeah, and look were that prediction got them.
They have egg on their faces but they still think it’s just an omelette!
You go girl. Git ’em!
Nice to see the tables turned. Let’s see the Italian authorities answer questions for a change. Why wasn’t she provided a lawyer or an impartial translator anyway? Why were her statements ruled inadmissible, but still used repeatedly to convict her?
LOL…Oh come on now! This has to be either Peg or her alter ego Michael from the dot Nutter or dot co-mitt them soon sites. The “Rubbish” opening suggests it is our English nut job Michael.
Providing false medical data before confirming the result with another test would be unethical and unprofessional at best and illegal when used as a torture device to help build what was later proved to be a non-existent case against two innocent persons.
And then for any type of medical data or test information to be leaked and shared with anyone other than the patient is illegal and inappropriate at least in civilized countries where laws actually matter.
So Michael…did this “doctor” release this information to the reporter who then wrote a story that happened to get her sued and that she lost? Because I personally think someone (Italy) has a lot of nerve for failing to investigate who and how that data got out. A certain prosecutor perhaps? A certain jail warden? A police chief maybe who had some false ax to grind perhaps? Or all maybe?
Oh sure an innocent mistake made by a doctor you proclaim…and then you pitifully add how proud Miss Knox was to publish details of her personal life.
You are insane. You should be tracked down for continuing an illogical hate campaign and harassment of two legally declared innocent persons. I suppose you could be BRMULL as well…another person not playing with a full reality deck.
Stop! NOW! Slink back down to your basement and continue your joint mental masturbation with the true God… whatever his name is from Toronto. You know the guy that cures Autism for 25 thousand…and can control the weather.
One would think that after a time the nut jobs would retreat back into or that their madness would consume them…
Please stop…your silly defense of the indefensible is making you look even more foolish than ever before. Everyone (even Italy ) now knows and understands that that they had a massive failure and breakdown that was all caught on film and in the press.
The ECOHR will completely exonerate Knox and then Italy must pay for all the abuse they put forth towards these two wrongly accused, illegally arrested and held without due process and in fact with a great deal of help from a corrupt and broken legal system and judiciary and police force…certainly in Perugia and Rome and other courts that rubber stamped outrageous idiotic ideas that were so obviously misguided that one has to understand that these officials all operate with the moral standards of the mafia.
Until Italy investigates and implements sweeping changes then all Italians are potentially a bad cop or judge away from ruination with endless legal process paid for by the Italian people themselves…At some point the irony of that must strike them as bizarre.
You lost. The kids are happy and free. Italy is being held accountable. Get help loser.
It’s good to know that Italy is being held accountable. It’s long overdue.
Well, actually the complaint to the ECOHR covers all that and they will as an independent court hear testimony and gather facts that are not spoon fed to them by the Italian system. BTW Italy has the worst (not even a close second) amount of violations against human rights by its courts for any Western Country. In fact Russia has a better record and only Turkey has a worse record and they are not the West last time I checked.
Someone is guilty of serious misconduct! Right now since the Italians have not bothered to investigate the false medical reports or who made them or who leaked them then how does your mind work to somehow turn that back onto Knox as being at fault? That is simply illogical. Add in the fact that Knox has already sued and won against the person that wrote a false story based on these leaked medical records and her leaked personal diary and it doesn’t take a genius to figure out how the European Court Of Human Rights will view these facts. If the Italians refuse to investigate and come to the table with a lame excuse for the misconduct…which they will then how else can the court decide? Because they dont like Knox? Like you?
Stop… you continue to embarrass yourself. There is enough data to prove beyond all doubt that many Italian officials neglected to do there duty and that they often ignored their own laws and constitution. And that taken in whole …since everything is documented that Italian judicial authorities failed at many points to stop what clearly was an illegal and worngful conviction of two innocent people.
The problem for Italy was not Knox…but in the end they had to decide to jail their own wonderful Italian Raffaele meanwhile Knox would never be returned to Italy. Everyone knew the whole case was just so much BS but in the end they did not have the stomache to jail their own son in order to save face and that is why they had a SC decision that they did. Not great lawyers…they were terrible. But in the end the illogicality and the amount of corrupt acts by the officials was so gross and so well documented that the Italians understood that they were caught like so many rats in a sinking ship. And so they made an unexplained reversal of a case that never should have made it past the initial interview. Italy can thank Mignini for that…and those who spent years and millions trying to cover for him. He belongs in jail as well as whoever lied to Knox about having a positive HIV test.
Simple really.
Not only Mignini does belong in jail, he belongs in a strait jacket.
Sorry, but it is you who is woefully confused.
The ECHR will be evaluating all aspects of Amanda’s interrogation, arrest and detention. Her complaint to the ECHR is bolstered by illegal or immoral behavior by Italian authorities. What is not disputed is;
– Amanda was advised she tested positive for HIV by someone who was not a doctor. Proper procedure is to follow up a positive test with a second test to confirm BEFORE saying anything to the one being tested.
– Amanda listed her partners so that they would be advised and could have their own tests done. The list was private and not intended for public disclosure.
– Italian officials, be it the prison, the police, the prosecutor, or some combination thereof, obtained the list and provided it to the media.
It’s obvious to me the intent of doing this was to supporting the claim that Amanda was sexually obsessed. It’s up to the court to form their own opinion on the motive for this.
The facts of the improper behavior of the Italian authorities is not nullified because the victim of such behavior was incarcerated, charged with murder and unaware of the backhanded tactics being used by the authorities. It is irrelevant what Amanda did once it was discovered what was done.
That you can twist the facts of what was done to Amanda and somehow think you are portraying her as a disgusting liar says far more about you than Amanda.
She was led to believe he was a doctor. Turned out he was not.
You DO realize proper procedure is to run a second test to confirm BEFORE saying anything to the patient, right? ….right?
She listed her partners so they could be advised. No one said she was told to write the list. The issue is the list, which was written in private for the benefit of those seven men on the list, was released to the media.
Keep digging Krissy
KrissyG is PUBLICLY acknowledged as a forum poster named ‘Vixen’, and her real name is used on a couple of ‘snuff porn’ ebooks as contributing editor. One Christina Giscombe. The author of these books also thanks ‘ KrissyG and Vixen.
Thanks for pointing this out, Lyn. You are, as usual, correct.
Who ever this KrissyG/Vixen person is, they really need to move on with their life. Thousands upon thousands of posts. And for what? It’s over. Amanda and Raffaele are living their lives again. All of the silly little lawsuits are now amounting to nothing, as we all knew they would. The only thing left is for ECHR to help Amanda completely clear her name in Italy. She has no legal issues here in the US. No record whatsoever. She was the keynote speaker at the innocence conference in Texas this year. She has a lot of support to help her move forward. She has many promising years ahead of her. If you were a guilter, you got it wrong. No big deal. We all make mistakes. Just walk away, no one will stop you. 99% of the guilters have already done that. The few that remain, like KrissyG, are nothing more than lunatics.
Fur is murder. You’ll never get out of your mother’s basement and when she’s gone you and your ilk will have to sell the house and move into an apartment for the rest of your miserable lives. Injustice anywhere right? So when will you and Knox take your fat @sses over to the DPRK and save Otto Frederick Warmbier from his false confession and conviction? Good luck you fat f#ck.
Does your wife know about your idolization of your heroine Amanda Knox? Keep your head buried inside her barren herpes cave in between her legs if that’s what makes you feel better. The darkness makes you look better since your f#cking mug look’s like a horse’s ass and there’s always room for one more. There are so many jammed up there now. God you people are so disgusting.
It’s people like KrissyG and Soultrader who just don’t know when to quit. They have nothing better to do with their lives than to bring their own suffering on others so they can make themselves feel batter.
I see you agree with Lyn Duncan posting pictures of Meredith’s body this certainly wouldn’t bring ‘suffering on others’ would it?
I never said I agree to posting pictures of Mererdith’s body, just what wrote on my post. Nor do I remember Lyn Duncan posting anything of the sort. Then again, that is something you have to take up with Lyn.
Perhaps you ‘liked’ her comment below justifying her photo tweet by accident?
As I said, take it up with Lyn.
I can’t hope to alter the mindset of that of of flawed thinking, the best I can do is draw attention to it.
I don’t do facebook. Can you describe the exchange, including what the photo was and what the comment below it was?
It was a photo of Meredith’s corpse on twitter. The poster Lyn Duncan was quick to identify herself and feels justified in her actions, as she stated in a comment to me under this article. Posters who choose to vote ‘up’ her comment must agree with her.
Well I can’t hope to alter ones mindset as well, other than that I don’t what else to tell you then what I told you before.
You ‘liked’ Lyn’s comment for whatever reason so yes I think we can just leave it at that.
Yes I suppose we can leave it like that as you say. Then again I never said I liked or disliked Lyn’s comment.
You name comes up when you view the up vote, the arrow which indicates agreement. It appears anyway that you agreed with Lyn’s comment where she justifies posting the photo of Meredith’s corpse. If you voted in error and have no opinion perhaps you should remove it.
My argument had to do with the photo of Amanda’s fiance being shopped around nothing more. As I said I never said I liked or disliked what Lyn said about the photos of Meredith’s dead body being on line so as I said take up with Lyn. One more thing, I don’t see why I should justify myself to you.
You liked Lyn’s comment in this section , you gave it the thumbs up or up vote, your name is there . I responded to Lyn , there is no justification for posting the photo. Likewise there is no justification for your approval to Lyn’s comment. As I said there is no point in trying to convince Lyn of the gross error of her ways and unfortunately there are others who agree with her. Nothing I can say will alter that disturbed mindset.
Anymore than we can alter your disturbed mindset about Amanda and Raffaele being guilty of murder?
So you do approve of those actions of Lyn’s, just as I thought and needed to point out.
I’ll take that as a no.
Great advice, but why have you not walked away and why are you commenting on a post made by a Knox supporter, who it would appear have not stopped talking about the case or Amanda
I run this websites and moderate these comments. So of course I have been reading through the comments here. I rarely comment on this case anymore. This article also deals with current news, not the tired old debates of the past.
You run the websites about a case you are advising people to walk away
Why not set an example and close your websites down
Our sites will remain online as an archive on the case. Of course you are only asking because you are a troll. You come here and write a book in the comment section. Typical. Your behavior on Facebook is well-known.
The troll line is lame.
I find it interesting that you are actively encouraging people to walk away from the case and desist from talking about it
Yet you have a website online, an archive as you call it. Whose existence will only add fuel to the fire by being a topic of conversation
If you really wanted everyone to stop the website would be deleted
My theory is you only want the collective you talking about the case.
As for my FB behaviour, I have not been a Saint, I do not blame you for not letting me in your group.
Oh by the way I tried to join you Injustice Anywhere Facebook group to see what is going on and if there were any cases of interest
It seems I have been banned without posting a single word.
My opinion that is rather unfair and an injustice
You have a long Facebook history. You have posted many words. So it’s rather unfair for you to suggest that you are new to the scene. Our Facebook group isn’t a good fit for you. Sorry.There are millions of other groups and pages to choose from.
Not a problem just wondered why I was banned before I even joined
Seems a little harsh in my opinion
My explanation was pretty clear.
Clear as mud
Can you tell me how it is that you support Lyn Duncan posting pictures of Meredeth’s corpse?
Amanda is now strong and confident and she isn’t going to take any more sh*t from the as*holes in Italy. It’s payback time.
Ain’t that the truth.
The question is quite simple, was the result presented to Knox the actual result of the test or just made up? If it is determined to be purposely false then she has a big claim, if negligently false then a smaller claim, and if just incompetence then no claim. The government is allowed to be incompetent and often gets away with things by claiming in competence. It will be a good day when every Italian authority who prosecuted this case will be forced to proclaim their own incompetence to the world. Mignini laid bare as Cersei, enduring his own walk of shame.
If the records were deleted that works in Knox’s favor since a person in prison has a diminished ability to defend themselves, to keep records, to file this and that as you claim. It is clear, though, that the authorities did provide a false result to Ms. Knox and did request she divulge her sexual contacts and those contacts were used against her, leaked by the authorities – and those elements alone, if proved, support her claim and testimony. The view of Italy from 9,000 miles away is not good and the press in this matter has switched from a pro-Italy lurid and interesting to confusion and now it is depicting Italy as being incompetent, schizophrenic, underhanded and disgraceful in their actions towards Knox. Hard to see how Italy wins here, the best they can do is fight to a draw. If I was advising them I’d say pay her off and write a mild rebuke of the officers involved.
“Anyone can make up allegations.”.
As you do, without pause or shame, but not everyone does.
Such people are generally regarded as slanderers.
It was investigator Giobbi who made up probable cause from ridiculously innocent actions of Amanda’s. It was the police who took meaningless text message and interpreted as “meet you TONIGHT” when only meant “See you something or another.” It was the police who lied that they could prove that Amanda was at the murder when they could not. It was the police who insisted on their made up story that Amanda had forgotten what happened when she was at the murder with Patrick Lumumba. It was the police interpreter who insisted it would come back to her when Amanda questioned what the police wanted her to agree to. It was the police who convinced Amanda they knew that Patrick Lumumba was guilty when they only had a suspicion that there was a black man involved because of threads found in Meredith’s hand they mistook fo hair from a black man. It was the police who wanted to connect Amanda to any black man so that they could connect her to the murder. Why should Amanda be blamed for the lie against Patrick Lumumba they made her believe?
“Whenever he heard men praise or blame others, he thought that he gained as much insight into the character of the critics as of the persons they criticized.
Slanderers he hated more than thieves, deeming loss of friends graver than loss of money.”
Greek historian Xenophon, writing of the famed general Agesilaus
One must assume that the ECHR took up the case because it appears to have merit and it may rectify an injustice carried out by Italian authorities against Amanda Knox. It is up to Knox now to make her case, to prove not that she it innocent, everyone knows she is innocent, but to prove that Italy purposely railroaded an innocent couple and illegally took their liberty. Shouldn’t be too difficult. If I were Italy I’d settle now before their avarice condemns them before the world.
Nonsense. The court is purely objective and takes no ‘view’ at this stage.
So you are saying they picked this case at random?
Anybody can file a claim at the ECHR as long as they set out the jurisdiction they are complaining about under the European Human Rights Act, it is timeous and they pay the filing fee.
The point of this article is to inform the public that the ECHR is allowing Ms. Knox’s case to proceed through the first gate of winnowing. Like the US Supreme court, most filed cases are rejected, not heard, by the ECHR court. In this case the ECHR decided to hear evidence in her case, to move it to the next step, not to reject the case. I do not have the statistics although I’m sure someone else on this board does, but this is a significant and necessary step towards a positive resolution.
You are quite wrong. The ECHR has not listed it for a hearing. It has merely sent out a preliminary interrogatory to the parties so that they can weigh up if it comes under jurisdiction.
The first hurdle is to demonstrate all official channels of complaints, including appeal has been followed. The claim is likely fail at this low hurdle.
If the ECHR decide there is jurisdiction to hear the case, that doesn’t mean you have a good chance of winning! The ECHR has heard only one side, so far, written by Knox’ own lawyer.
Use whatever manipulative words you want.. “not listed for a hearing”, “merely sent out a .. interrogatory”, “claim is likely [to] fail”, I’ve heard them all before. Mignini is the droid were are looking for. The ECHR has picked up the ball and thrown it to Italy to respond. My opinion of this case is quite simple: Italy, produce the tape or you lose. If the tape corroborates your story then you win.
Think about it rationally. You can toddle down to your local court tomorrow and file a suit against Joe Bloggs down the road. As long as you fill in the correct boxes and pay the fee, yourr cliam will be accepted.
It DOESn’t mean you will get a hearing and in no sense does it mean you have any chance of winning, as it will depend on the MERITS.
The ECHR has not yet weighed up the merits, thus it is ridiculously premature to be celebrating.
You may think this press report is a nothing-burger and perhaps it is since I am very dubious of the press. But then why would the court ask Italy to provide a response if they are not going to hear said response? My rational thinking tells me that this case is proceeding beyond the point you claim.
If you reread my original post you will see that I am not celebrating a victory, only the next step and continued absence of defeat. True victory for Knox would be Italy, especially Mignini, unambiguously admitting that they intentionally and maliciously falsely accused and prosecuted a 100% innocent couple. Financial compensation would also be appropriate. Those officials who initiated and propagated this case should also be punished for abusing their power, perhaps by giving them a taste of their own medicine.
Unfortunately the case against the actually guilty party, the murderer Rudy Guede, cannot and should not be extended as I am a strong believer in full restoration of rights after one serves ones designated punishment.
ECHR has already heard Amanda’s complaint in deciding to accept her case. ECHR is now asking for a response from the Italian Judiciary, but Amanda’s case already has merit or ECHR would not have accepted her case. What remains is for ECHR to compare the Italian Judiciary’s case with the evidence that Amanda has already submitted. Her case being accepted certainly is something to celebrate, but it is ridiculous to claim she doesn’t have a good chance of winning since so many other cases were won after being accepted.
Amanda has already demonstrated that she has used all official channels of complaint and appeal within the Italian Judiciary. She has already filed the evidence of her request. It’s only up to the Italian Judiciary to respond with their case. The ECHR already has jurisdiction according to Amanda’s filing and Italy being an ECHR member. The ECHR accepting her complaint is the ECHR’s declaring that it does have jurisdiction. Of course ECHR will take years to formulate its decision, but that is the next step after the Italian Judiciary responds to Amanda’s claim. That might not take so long since it doesn’t look like the Italian Judiciary has much of a way to defend what it did.
You are quite right, Vixen. But it’s not about the filing its about the acceptance onto the role of a bona fide complaint that is under discussion here.
Do keep up.
The ECHR is not a trial court. It reviews cases for abuse of rights. It would not have taken this case if it didn’t think there was a problem. Now the ECHR has asked the Italian Judiciary for it side of the story. Of course ECHR does not have to view the evidence with the same perspective that the Italian Judiciary did. That’s the thing about what the Italian Judiciary did to Amanda. It’s an opinion over whether she was coerced or not, and the police cannot point to a recording to say that it proves their story. There’s also a difference in how ECHR will view Amanda’s First Memorandum. They don’t have to consider just one part of a single sentence to determine that the rest of that sentence and all of the First Memorandum demonstrates Amanda’s confusion over the statements the police had her sign. Why would ECHR hold Amanda responsible for statements that the police typed in Italian that the interpreter testified Amanda could not read?
The ECHR questionnaire recently sent out is mainly directed at the claimant, not Italy. The onus is on Knox to ensure all the back up paperwork is provided. Some appears to be missing. Once this is rectified then a judge or judges will determine if the claim is admissible. See the ECHR Practice Directions for the rules.
So why are the news reporting that they have requested a response from the Italian Judiciary? Amanda has already made her complaint with the necessary evidence for ECHR to accept her case.
It’s standard procedure to invite the other party to respond. That is why they are called ‘the Respondent’.
Isn’t that what I said?
Then how do you account for ECHR accepting Amanda’s case if they are still asking her for information? The court did determine that the claim was admissible which is why it is requesting a response from the Italian Judiciary.
I do think that Amanda has made her case that she was abused into signing forced statements. It is really up to the Italian Judiciary to try to prove that that didn’t happen and that she should be responsible for lies they had her sign.
If she wants to settle… Being in her situation I wouldn’t.
Coraggio, Amanda. Hasta el final. Hasta que tu reputación quede lavada y sepa todo el mundo la vergüenza de la mal llamada justicia italiana, que nunca podrá restutirte las difamaciones by años que pasate en la cárcel siendo inocente
So when the authorities are mistaken it’s a mistake but when Amanda is mistaken it’s a lie.
Most of your post and particularly your last sentence are complete lies.
She was in prison. Wrongfully.
…and you think Knox should have thrown stones at the beast who kept her captive?
Riiiight.
Maybe you should produce a warrant for them to have confiscated it. They used it to get Amanda’s list of sex partners. That’s what the scam about the HIV positive was all about. There was no relevance of Amanda’s sex life to the crimes that Guede perpetrated against Meredith. All the police wanted was something to smear Amanda with.
Prison officials only have privilege to confiscate evidence and contraband. With evidence you have to have a warrant for searching for it. What evidence could the prison officials know was in Amanda’s diary before reading it? She wrote about things that had nothing to do with Meredith’s murder when it occurred.
I was talking about what prison officials can confiscate. They still have no right to confiscate personal property without cause. So how did the prison officials declare cause for Amanda’s diary? They didn’t. They just took it. And the reason they took it was not legitimate evidence. They wanted to smear her with her sex life. That was irrelevant to the case they had against her.
Certainly the prison officials can search a prisoner’s cell for contraband. How was Amanda’s diary contraband. They had no right to confiscate her personal property that was neither contraband nor evidence.
You still have not explained what warranted the confiscation of Amanda’s personal property.
There is nothing ludicrous about expecting that a person has rights even if she is a prisoner.
You are picking out one issue …the false medical report stated to Knox while she was in prison. Why this is important to you is puzzling.
Her complaint to the ECOHR revolves around her inability to get a fair trial plus her inability to get a timely trial. All the other things like the fake HIV test and the refusal to grant her a legally required lawyer and independent interrupter are just examples of how Italy failed during this case.
The only issue that remains actually is a charge of calumny which was wrongly upheld by the Italian Courts. For a number of reasons this will be a simple matter for the ECOHR to decide but the question remains as to what Italy will do about it. They are noted for ignoring human rights by its judicial system and they have a long list of recorded violations to stand on so…
This case has something that most others that go to the ECOHR does not normally have and that is world wide attention. It will be something the Italians will clearly understand as making them look very bad in front of the whole world. As if they don’t already look foolish enough.
The case that Mignini and company brought against Knox for slander against the police and even the chief idiot from Rome was tossed out! And that made world wide news…not just local news and not just national news.
This ECOHR case will bring to light how far and how deeply Italian officials went in order to cover up a wrong from the beginning interrogation, arrest and a couple of nonsensical convictions. Why simply reading the Massei motivation report alone is enough to prove that something is seriously wrong in this case. It is a convoluted mess that would be funny if it had not been so serious as to rob two young lives of 4 years freedom plus continues to put them through a legal hell with the loss of youth and millions in unnecessary defense legal fees and costs.
Yes a girl was murdered.
And in a separate unrelated crime an Italian prosecutor and then a whole string of judicial officials did everything legal and illegal in order to unjustly arrest, convict and jail completely innocent persons.
This is a story of corruption and acts by officials that one could never imagine passing in front of so many legal honest eyes and yet with no one standing up and saying…STOP! Even after an appeals court declared them innocent and set them free…Italy pressed on trying to save face in an impossible fraud filled case brought and then rummer stamped by so many.
Mignini filing charges against defense lawyers, against the families, against reporters and newspapers. Who thinks they can get away with this? Meanwhile they pour gasoline on an already burning inferno? Stupid!
When simply doing the right thing early and admitting they made a serious mistake and paying a little compensation would have had the matter long ago forgotten…now Italy gets to go before the world as they are judged by this case and as well they should.
It was shameful and they were fine with putting their own native son…spotless record, in jail for nothing. Now the world will see how corrupt things can get in Italian judicial offices. This will not be one more simple check mark in the violations column of no fair trial and no speedy trial…it will be a black eye that scares tourists away for quite some time …but lucky for Italy memories fade and people forget. Best they settle up quickly and silently as possible.
The highly confused appearing on here are simply a small collection of what was termed guilters …people who hate Knox so much and for reasons that I am sure they can not define let alone defend.
The Supreme Court of Italy finally after 8 years has declared Knox and Sollecito fully innocent of murder charges. What remains is a slander case that in reality is the Italian police writing words that have Lumumba being given up as the killer and having a non-Italian speaking, scared, abused, teenage girl sign that which was impossible for her to understand. But which no one with even the weakest of logical skill cant not clearly understand what was going on in the police station.
And these same cops are later caught in fraud for trying to affect a child custody case of the principle and police chief closely involved in this case? Are you kidding me?
This could come out…I hope it all does. Because Italy needs to do some house cleaning with the police and the judiciary… the Italian people deserve better than this, for it is they who remain at risk of this abuse daily.
If amanda had any mercy she*d put herself out of the news because this nauseous exhoneration exhumation just makes her look guilty even if she is clean as rain. to be honest it is easy to laugh at her thunder as she strikes again.
What exactly is ‘ nauseous’ about justice Sam? The Italian Supreme Court found Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with Meredith’s murder. I add, for the benefit of others, that debating interpretation of the judgement counts for nothing as the ruling was definitive, and just. Amanda filed a request to the ECHR at the end of 2013 IIRC asking that they consider the conditions of her interrogation that led to her naming Patrick Lumumba as Meredith’s murderer. The ECHR has accepted her request and they do NOT accept many cases at all. Do you believe she should live the rest of her days with a conviction for calunnia over her head when she was slapped, screamed at, lied to so that Perugian Police could arrive at what they ‘ already knew’?
She will live the rest of her days as a murderer who got away with it, an experienced and proven liar, a false accuser and a leech who has no inhibitions in getting others to lie for her. Not only that, but she relishes being able to corrupt future judicial reasoning by promoting her lies as a truthful account contrary to her own recorded words and rather than follow due diligence her supporters and family mindlessly excuse her. “Amanda being Amanda”…..you are welcome to her.
Ummmm. Nope. 🙂 She will live the rest of hers days knowing the man who DID did not get enough time for sexually assaulting and murdering Meredith will soon be free to walk among innocent Perugian”s. She never lied Soletrader, you just want to believe it. The funniest thing? All those ‘ lies’ she told now see her free! And the ECHR has accepted her claim that she was mistreated and likely had an unfair trial! Now how do you figure that? Please don’t tell me you subscribe to the Masonic theory! 😉
I think the phrase you are looking for is, “In spite of all those lies she told now see her free”. Your choice of heroines appears to have a slight shortcoming….LOL
Are you familiar with this wonderful adage?>>> ” Up Shit Creek without a Paddle”? I see no spares about. 🙂
I am. Regarding the ‘spare’, thank you for the compliment. Please check your mirror and the urban meaning of it.
It’s taking you a while….lol…..type away. 🙂
She will live the rest of her days as a murderer who got away with it, an experienced and proven liar, a false accuser and a leech who has no inhibitions in getting others to lie for her. Not only that, but she relishes being able to corrupt future judicial reasoning by promoting her lies as a truthful account contrary to her own recorded words and rather than follow due diligence her supporters and family mindlessly excuse her. “Amanda being Amanda”…..you are welcome to her.
On the contrary, Amanda AND Raffaele will live the rest of their days as inspirational figures, a reminder to others who have been falsely imprisoned that if you keep the faith and remain determined it is possible to correct an injustice.
You, otoh, apparently will be living out the rest of your days as a proven dullard, easily duped by the likes of Quennell and Ahmad. You’re a nasty, hateful person who has no reservations about making reprehensible comments towards someone you don’t know and who has been acquitted by the highest court in the land. Given that, and your statement above, I’d say it is you who is the proven liar.
If Amanda had died and Meredith had lived, chances are Soultrader and the rest of the guilters would treat Meredith the EXACT same way they are treating Amanda and Raffaele.
I’m honest and that is the way I treat everyone. Amazing that there is apparently not one honest supporter of Amanda Knox who will stand against her proven lies.
Again you make assertions that I’m the liar but yet fail to produce anything to support it. I’m still waiting for anyone to prove that the 53+ hours is an honest account of the time Amanda was questioned. Let me know when you can find an honest person among you who will actually accept Amanda’s own words.
“She will live the rest of her days as a murderer who got away with it,
an experienced and proven liar, a false accuser and a leech who has no
inhibitions in getting others to lie for her.”
Your words…
1. She is NOT a murderer. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but given the ISC acquitted her and ruled there was no evidence of her involvement in the murder, this makes you a liar.
2. You have no evidence of her being an “experienced” or “proven” liar. Again, you are free to make whatever claims you want but without evidence it is you who is again proving to be a liar.
3. No one needs to prove the number of hours. It’s in the court documents. You haven’t proved otherwise and without evidence your hollow words mean nothing.
I must say…this is MUCH more civil rather than a few words at twitter no? 😉
Don’t bother finishing your garbage Lyn, we’ve heard all your crap before…….LOL
Back atcha! 😉 And the best thing…I and so many others were right. 🙂
Your post is terribly misguided, Sam. Amanda has been exonerated. She has every right to work to fully clear her record in Italy. Sadly, many exonerees in the United States spend years trying to fully clear their records, long after they are free. It certainly does not make them look guilty to want their records rightfully cleared.
What makes them look guilty is depending on lies to justify their innocence. Now why does Amanda need to lie if she is innocent? Why haven’t you spoken up about the ’53 hour interrogation’ lie? You are supposed to be knowledgeable about the case, you should know the contents of the Court documents and the transcripts of the phone intercepts and call records! Why do you, holding yourself up as an advocate for ‘innocence’, allow the promotion of lies?
This case is closed. There is no need to continue arguing. Amanda and Raffaele have moved on with their lives. You should do the same. If you wanted me to answer your questions, you should have asked me 2 years ago when it actually mattered. I was always available to respond. Read AmandaKnoxcase.com. Our answers are there for you to read, if you still feel the need.
It was not a lie. The 53 hours was what the court trying the policemen’s lawsuit against Amanda determined was the length of all the interrogations. It included the time until Amanda wrote her First Memorandum since the prosecutor used that First Memorandum as evidence against her. After all, Amanda was still in detention by the police during that time.
On whom do you want Amanda to have mercy? She is suing the Italian Judiciary for abusing her rights. It was not her lies that were placed in those statements that she was coerced into signing. It was lies that the police typed in Italian knowing full well that Amanda could not understand what those statements said. Do you really think that someone is guilty because they say they are innocent? If Amanda stayed quiet, wouldn’t you then claim that she knows she’s guilty since she wouldn’t defend herself?
Thank you for admitting that it was the police who were at fault for releasing the diary to the public. Since it was not legal for the public to publicize the contents of the diary, it was illegal for the prison officials to confiscate it. The diary was entered as irrelevant evidence. It had no bearing on proving that Amanda raped and killed Meredith. The prison officials were not within their privileges. I don’t recognize government having rights.
Thank you for showing you are clueless and apparently enjoy listening to your own myths rather than have the ability to understand clear statements by others.
Guilters’ statements have always been lies. Why should I believe your myths?
Notice how their comments are being deleted? 🙂
I noticed a few comments of Bo Lasquis was deleted. They weren’t deleted by the monitor. So Bo Lasquis must have done it himself. They are probably comments where he contradicted himself. It’s going to be interesting to look back in my emails to see which ones they are.
That is interesting. Then again, guilters are always contradicting themselves nothing new about that. 🙂
The only thing they used it for was to smear Amanda. It was not evidence. What probable cause was there to expect in Amanda’s sex partners? None. What associates in prison could Amanda have had that had any bearing on the case? None. Amanda’s diary was personal property to which prison officials had no privilege to confiscate. You have not provided any warrant for this confiscation.
Please explain to me how the appearance of Amanda’s diary gave the prison officials probable cause to suspect that there was any evidence in it. They had no privilege to examine the contents without reason to believe there was evidence therein. They were simply on an abominable fishing trip.
A FYI post for certain people to digest. This taken from another site and referring to another article >>> ” Of course, an application to ECHR should not be called an “appeal”, as this article does, because that implies a relationship between ECHR and the domestic court that does not exist, and the ECHR is not considering issues of guilt or innocence of the applicant, but rather whether or not the Respondent State (Italy, in this case) violated the Convention rights of the applicant. Thus, a person who has been found guilty by a domestic (State) court remains guilty, but under certain findings – such as unfair trial – by the ECHR, must be retried by the State court with full observance of his or her rights. In Italy, this is called a revision trial. In Amanda’s case, the revision trial would necessarily exclude as evidence of guilt all of Amanda’s statements obtained under duress or without a lawyer; this would lead to the conviction being vacated (dismissal or acquittal) due to a total lack of evidence of calunnia.”
And you don’t?
Bologna, guilter troll loser.
Stop being silly guilter troll. You lost Amanda is free and rich. :>)
The courts have already proven all of your previous arguments to be foolish.
Ya right “we think you have tested positive for HIV but not to worry we will do more tests to prove it” LOL Go sober up loser.
Are you really too stupid to see the difference between an innocent person trying to clear their name and a country whose deranged prosecutor helped the news tabloids make million’s on Merideth’s murder.
I’d say that’s a fair question.
It is difficult to justify detaining an innocent person who was interrogated for an inhumane length of time, coerced and bullied into aligning her statement to coincide with the polices (wrong!) beliefs.
…and you think this is ok?
Well let’s see what the EHRC has to say about this type of authority/police action
One hour and 15 minutes is not an inhumane length of time. What is a long time is the 27 hours between her leaving the police station on the night of the 4th. Went to college on the 5th, bummed around for the rest, went for Pizza with Raff, wasn’t even called to Police. Went with Raff when he was called in, did some homework and was told to go home but refused. Asked if she would help make a list of people who attended the cottage and at 00:30 was calm and answering questions. One hour and 15 minutes later she had blamed Patrick Lumumba.
Most 9-5 workers only have a 16 hour break so how can you even promote the garbage of ‘inhumane length of time’
Courts accepted the times provided them by Amanda’s counsel. It is a crack up seeing you people trying to come up with your own list. It is great to know you spend so much time on this, neglecting families and work etc. You have absolutely no idea what went on those days leading up to Amanda and Raffaele’s wrongful arrests. But you can fantasise.
She was entitled to the appeal regardless of what she submitted. Just because the hours listed are wrong in the appeal does not give them acceptability or raise them to a ‘fact’. Feel free to show where the Court ruled that 53 hours was correct.
Its not ‘my own list’, its actually Amanda’s as all times are related to her activity, her recorded phone intercepts, and her phone records and the written, signed and verified evidence available for anyone to read in the Court documents.
“You have absolutely no idea what went on those days leading up to Amanda…….” = You are now claiming that Amanda and Raffaele were lying to their friends and families in phone conversations during that time. You are also claiming that Amanda in a recorded conversation leaving the Police station at 17:00 on the 3rd didn’t happen but that she stayed there until 22:00 among other things, even though that phone call is also listed on the appeal document on the very next line.
Mine is not the fantasy, mine is not even my words. You are directly accusing Amanda of lying as both of her own accounts are in direct conflict.
You can try to link the appeal document to the source documents and prove to me that you can support your claims. I can link every point and every timestamp. I know you can’t so I have absolutely no fear of asking you to put up or shut up.
If you want to promote lies, well that has actually been shown to be well within your character based on your recent scum activity.
Amanda was still in the same interrogation detention when she wrote her First Memorandum. You don’t have to like the inclusion of that as interrogation time, but she was still responding to the interrogation when she wrote it. She was still trying to set the record straight because of how abusive they had treated her. For her it had not ended since she was frustrated that they still were not listening to her when she was only trying to help them find Meredith’s killer.
I suggest you telephone the ECHR as soon as possible to give them your remarkable new information. On second thoughts let’s leave them with the facts.
Its not new and its always been in the Court records but apparently its easier for Amanda Knox supporters to repeat lies rather than correct them. You are very welcome to try to prove any of the times I posted are wrong. I won’t bother waiting for you as no other supporters have managed it.
Do you even know fact from fiction?
Fact:- Neither Amanda Knox or her supporters can confirm the 53+ hour interrogation or can show from the records that the timings listed in her appeal to the Massei Court are correct.
Fiction:-That you will be the one.
I’ll take that as a no.
Nobody claimed that the interrogation was 53 hours in one session. It was 53 hours over four days. And the court that dismissed the police lawsuit against Amanda was the court that determined it was a total of 53 hours since the original trial court had included Amanda’s First Memorandum as evidence they used against her. She was still detained in that last interrogation while she wrote that First Memorandum.
What are you doing? Claiming that the police were interrogating Amanda before the interpreter arrived? Is 0:30 AM when you claim that the calm interrogation started? The police were talking to Amanda immediately after she arrived with Raffaele. Ficarro insisted on moving the informal chat Amanda was having with one police officer into the interrogation almost immediately after she and that police officer started talking. That was the end of any calm talking.
How long does it take for the police to abuse a supposed witness who trusted the police into signing a statement she didn’t have the fluency in Italian to understand? How long does it take for that trust Amanda had that the police just wanted her to help them find the killer to make her wonder if the police were right that she had forgotten what happened? How long does it take for an innocent naive young lady to accept the lies the police were telling her? They told her they had hard evidence that she was at the murder that night. They didn’t. They told her that Raffaele had told them that she was not with him all night. They didn’t. They told her that her text message “See you later” meant she was arranging to meet with Patrick Lumumba when it didn’t. They hit her in the head to “help her remember.” They had her imagine what would have happened if she had been at the murder with Patrick Lumumba but insisted her fantasy in answer was the truth so that she believed they already knew that from some other source. There was nothing calm about being trapped in the small interrogation room from 11:30 PM until 1:45 AM with at least two investigators screaming demands and threats at her at one time. Where do you get the idea that it only took 1 1/4 hours for them to get that forced statement signed? Where did you get the idea that Amanda calm and collected when she finally agreed with what they wanted her to say. That sure doesn’t show up in her First Memorandum which Amanda wrote immediately after being forced to sign the second statement in Italian Mignini worded that Amanda could not read.
You ant to see disgusting? How’s about this photoshopped piece from you KrissyG…involving Amanda’s fiance also! Bad enough it is of an innocent person but of a guy who has NEVER uttered a word about the case? Absolutely disgusting. https://scontent.fakl1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/12311246_10208128172311921_8626538873590089343_n.jpg?oh=ab8c9616d93c45afb38f66d9f88c9b8c&oe=57DB71D1
Would this be the same ‘Lyn Duncan’ aka ‘@zebbidi875’ on twitter who has just sent a picture of Meredith Kercher’s naked corpse to @RudyGuede.
Lyn please seek therapy as soon as possible.
You are an extremely sick individual.
It’s hard for me to believe this happened who released this photo and how is that justifiable?
The ‘photo’ is from a German video freely available online. It was tweeted to Guede, the victims murderer. Nobody has to justify anything to you Rachel, or anybody else!
There is no justification for searching out and posting the victim’s corpse just because it’s possible Lyn Duncan
Lyn Duncan openly justifies posting a photo of Meredith’s body on a recent tweet FYI Frankknows.
file:///C:/Users/Lyn/Desktop/Docs/My%20Pictures/Media%20Tweets%20by%20KrissyG%20(@KrissyG1)%20_%20Twitter.html
Another very interesting piece of info…from another site. 🙂 ” ‘In cases concerning a “criminal charge” the protection of Article 6 starts with an official notification of suspicion against the person (Eckle v. Germany, §§73-75), or practical measures, such as a search, when the person is first substantially affected by the “charge” (Foti v. Italy, §§52-53). Where a person is questioned by the police in circumstances which imply that the police consider him as a potential suspect, and his answers are later used against him at the trial, Article 6 is applicable to this questioning as well, even though the person has not the formal status of suspect or accused (Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia, §§41-60).’
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperatio…irtrial_en.pdf
Please read down and pay attention to the person that is Lyn Duncan. She has just tweeted photo’s of Meredith Kercher’s naked body to Rudy Guede. This is an prime example of the people and the mentality that support the ex-con habitual liar that is Amanda Knox. She is not unique among the group of supporters but actually is proving to be quite the norm.
We will wait and see who from the Amanda supporters will fain being appalled by this action, because that’s all it will be. If you ever wondered how like minded people can join together to commit a murder, you need look no further than the circle of people around Amanda & Raffaele.
I hope you reported the tweet and offensive activity to twitter.
He would have. Nothing offensive about reminding a murderer of what he did to a beautiful young woman after he publicly states how satisfied he is that he has completed his thesis. The tweet was to Guede, nobody else. And soletrader…. its FEIGN.
Of course. You can see from her response below that she believes inexcusable behaviour can somehow be accepted. It never can.
Her childlike mindset then tries to gain a bonus point by trying to find an error in my post and point out (actually shouting) ‘its FEIGN’ when she has not even bothered to check the meaning of ‘fain’ = compelled by the circumstances.
She doesn’t appear to have any ability to really understand……bless her.
Hello Amanda, as you already know, dear Amanda, I got my trial in Strasbourg and won against the Belgian Government. It has been a long and silent road and any country tries to keep the silence about these rulings. So, for the moment, I cannot even talk to the press or publish anything about my own case. I call out to you again, Amanda, to contact me as soon as possible through my email (k.keersmaekers2015@gmail.com) to get help in the running up to my re-trial. Kindly yours, …
No, I am reading the appeal document itself. It’s rather comical for some anonymous Internet poster who has NO involvement in the case to claim THEY have things correct and the legal team that submitted the appeal has it wrong. Is that arrogance or ignorance?
Please fee free to show me which of the ‘corrections’ are wrong and verify your belief in the ones in the appeal document by referencing the source documents that the timings are derived from. You can start with the 22:00 listed on the 3rd and show me where this a correct time for that day.
Claiming that the legal team that submitted the appeal has it wrong is intelligence and their errors are easily proven. You will be unable to prove them right, and that’s not arrogance as it doesn’t require arrogance to state a fact or read a reference document.
Its time to prove your intelligence or accept your ignorance. Not really surprising that suddenly the ‘number of hours’ doesn’t matter and yet you accept Amanda Knox repeating them on camera.
Fran apparently Knows sod all.
It is absolutely arrogance on your part to suggest that the legal team representing the defendant, which submitted a legal document to the court which documented the hours, and which was not disputed by the prosecution is wrong, BUT YOU, who has NO connection to the case, NO access to official documents, and who was not there to track the hours Amanda was in some way engaged with the police, has it correct. And lets be honest here — you’re merely parroting either Quennell or Naseer. You personally have no idea.
I don’t have to prove a thing. I’m referencing an official court document. If anyone has to prove something it is you, since you’re the one claiming the court document is incorrect. What you posted above is proof of nothing. It’s merely Quennell’s BS copied by you. Let’s see you produce official documents that supports the claim.
And no, pointing out that the number of hours doesn’t matter has nothing to do with my confidence in the hours documented in the appeal. It’s merely pointing out that when someone 20 years old has a friend and roommate murdered in her own home, and who doesn’t speak the language well and who has no family or support structure to lean on and who found herself being suspected of committing the crime is going to be extremely stressed out, as proven by statements by officers who were there and saw her. But this, of course, goes right over your head. Typical of a guilter.
“extremely stressed out”……. there are different causes. Committing murder can do it, about to be arrested for murder can do it, lying through your teeth when you yourself don’t believe it can do it.
Saying in a recorded phone call leaving the police station after the 2nd day you had attended, “I’m not freaked out, just faking it”…., not so much.
Regarding compensation, in Germany, a killer who abducted a child for ransom (and killed his victim right after the abduction) was threatened by the leading investigator with physical harm if he did not give up the location of the child (who police still hoped was alive then). The investigator openly admitted to have threatened the defendant and
was unapologetic about it. The ECHR granted the killer a compensation of 10,000 Euro.
The compensation was never paid and every time he complains, there are protests from the public opposing the payment.
He claimed t0rture and an unfair trial, arguing that evidence had been found and used against him as a consequence of him being threatened which lead to him giving up the location of the body.
The ECHR agreed he had been threatened, but decided he was not a victim of actual torture (he was only verbally threatened) and that his first confession had not been used against him, so Germany had granted him a fair trial.
http://murderpedia.ORG/male.G/g/gafgen-magnus.htm
He got a small victory, but ultimately the ECHR did not side with him in his most important arguments.
Given his two confessions, the first one being thrown out by German courts, clearly there are many similarities to Knox’s case.
Oh not a truer word spoken! You are the veritable mistress of made up allegations. 🙂 Amanda ( and Raffaele) is free and innocent. No amount of sick jealousy and projection from you will change that.
Hi my name is Bruce Fischer and I live in the lower level income Northeast Chicago area. I would like to announce that due to some very poor economic choices, I will be expanding my current career to include “gay for hire” services. These include, but are not limited to, gay male bottom services, gay top services, gay prisoner services, gay masochist, deep blow jobs, semen swallowing, full on facial explosions, feces eating, urine drinking, an@l penetration, and light candle and chain torture. Movies, posters and mass media welcome as well as parties and private hookups. Rates are negotiable. Please send inquiries to brucefischer@groundreport.com Thank you.
Is that you Joe Zoo?
It had to be zoo… I can’t think of anyone else who has NO class. It is interesting, however, that s/he knows so much about gay services.. says a lot about zoo.
That’s Joe Zoo for ya. Always hiding behind a different IDENTITY to try cover his/her tracks. But Joey is NOT fooling anybody.
Hope they actually do something about this, it follows Legion invitation
Sometimes you have to grudgingly accept that Justice does not always work.
Very true, but thankfully there are cases such as this one where justice does eventually prevailed, even if it has taken far longer than it should have. All that remains is for the ECHR to set the record straight on the bogus calunnia charge and for Italy to finally figure out it needs to keep Guede in jail. Of course, if Mignini was finally held accountable that what be icing but I’m not holding my breath.
How has Justice prevailed for the Murder victim in this case exactly? Care to elaborate on your statement
Justice prevailed for Meredith when Guede went to prison. Of course, due to their overzealous attempts to imprison two innocent people they managed to let Guede off with a much lighter sentence than he should have been given, so justice wasn’t fully achieved, but it was something.
But justice doesn’t always apply just to the victim of a crime. This article is a discussion of Amanda’s continued effort to correct the injustice done to her. To that extent, the acquittal by the ISC was justice, and if/when the ECHR rules on the calunnia verdict there could be more justice for Amanda.
And lets not forget that the Kercher family was being misled for several years about Amanda and Raffaele being involved in the crime, so it was justice for them when the courts finalized the fact that they were not involved. Hopefully it will lead to some closure for them.
By your comment I trust you feel justice hasn’t prevailed. Care to elaborate yourself?
I am positive you actually believe every word you have written.
However I strongly disagree, in my opinion Justice has failed it has not prevailed.
The Justice system has crashed in this particular case, it has honoured any of its obligations to the Murder victim and her family other than the incarceration of Guede.
I believe the murder was a joint enterprise undertaking which means that there are others responsible for the murder who have simply not made amends for a crime they are responsible for.
Fair enough. We both agree the justice system failed but for different reasons. I believe the investigation jumped to a conclusion without any evidence to support it and once it had made such a big deal of how rapidly they ‘closed the case’ they refused to correct their error, even if that meant prosecuting to innocent people and leading the victim’s family down the wrong path for years.
Yes, I do believe every word I have written. It comes from careful study of the case for over five years. My personal opinion is those who think more than one person was involved do so mostly because of what the police fed media wrote early on, what Massei and Nencini wrote in their motivation reports (none of which was ‘proven’, it was all supposition and often contrary to expert opinion or proven science) and pro-guilt websites.
The tragic legacy of humankind is that woman are killed just as Meredith was every day. If you take the basic facts of the case and put them out there for someone who knows nothing of the case they will immediately come to the conclusion that Guede alone committed the crime. What are those facts?…
o There was an apparent break-in into the cottage.
o Significant forensic evidence proves someone who shouldn’t have been there (Guede) was in the room Meredith died in.
o DNA within Meredith proves a sex act was committed upon Meredith by Guede (Guede claims it was consensual but there is no way I believe Meredith would have done that).
o Guede fled the country.
o Guede is suspected of several B&E’s in the weeks prior to the murder, including one which involved breaking a second story window and entrying through that window.
Add to this the testimony from six of seven expert witnesses, representing both defense and prosecution, which testified the wounds were compatible or consistent with a lone attacker. This opinion is supported by the fact that there is no forensic trace of anyone else in the room other than Meredith and Guede. Other people could not have been in that room and been involved in such a violent, bloody crime and not left any trace of themselves. It’s just not realistic.
Also add to this that Amanda and Raffaele had absolutely no motive to commit such a crime and that there is evidence that places them in Raffaele’s apartment at least until 21:26, a time at which I believe Meredith was either dead or dying (stomach content, state of dress at the time of the attack, failure to call her mother after the first call ended abruptly, etc.)
Guede’s defense wanted to implicate others so as to lessen his own culpability and it worked. The prosecution was more than happy to go along as it was already prepared to prosecute Amanda and Raffaele. But Guede himself, at a time when he thought he was only talking to his friend, and who was already trying to blame others, made it clear Amanda was not involved, that he didn’t even know Raffaele and that the mystery man who attacked Meredith was smaller than he was (Raffaele is bigger).
Can we agree that innocence has never been actually proven.
Reasonable doubt led to an acquittal, This doubt was was there due to the sole factor of a flawed investigation
This was not a Witch hunt as stated multiple times by innocence supporters. I personally doubt the investigators had the intelligence to successfully frame a picture, never mind a criminal case.
Unfortunately you have repeated far too many myths and mistruth a for my liking
My carefully considered opinion is that this was a joint enterprise, spur of the moment not plotting or motive required
As for forensic traces there are none of Guede in Filomena’s room or in the smaller bathroom. So how reliable was the forensic investigation? That you are taking its results as gospel?
Yes, we can agree innocence was never proven. Reasonable doubt and a complete lack of evidence of their involvement is what led to the acquittal. And while the investigation was horribly flawed, I would argue the flaws were the only thing that allowed the prosecution to pursue Amanda and Raffaele. A competent investigation would have resulted in neither of them ever being charged.
Witch hunt is a generalization. Personally I think it was a rush to judgement which resulted in tunnel vision driven by confirmation bias.
I’d be interested in what “myths or mistruth’s” you feel I’ve stated.
Do you think Amanda and Raffaele are guilty? And if you do, are you saying that you think Amanda and Raffaele, for no reason at all, just decided to collaborate with Guede in the sexual assault and murder of Meredith?
Meredith’s bedroom was the scene of a violent, chaotic encounter, with significant blood spread across a large area. My belief is three people could not have attacked Meredith in that room and left no trace. Guede left a palm print, he left shoe prints and he left significant DNA traces in numerous places. There was no trace of Amanda and, aside from a debatable LCN trace on the clasp, no trace of Raffaele. Assuming the break-in is real, only one person was there, it lacked any confrontation or chaos and there was no blood or other substances to leave tracks in. There was a footprint in the bathroom, it just can’t be traced to anyone.
The entire investigation was screwed up, including the forensic work, so no, I take nothing as gospel. However, the palm and shoe prints can NOT be the result of a faulty investigation. Other than that it is entirely possible they missed a lot of things but at the end of the day they simply had nothing on Amanda and Raffaele and that is why the ISC ruled as it did.
A joint enterprise crime is when a secondary part aids, abets councels or procures for the principal offender making the secondary party equally as responsible for the crime as the principal offender.
There are the mixed samples of Amanda and Meredith, also a sample of Solecitto was found on a fag butt in the kitchen.
There is no trace of Guede in Filomena’s bedroom even though he stated he was in there.
My conclusion is the forensic investigation is either flawed, because it missed crucial evidence or we can just cherry pick to suit certain agendas or beliefs.
I believe in the small bathroom there were traces of Amanda’s blood on the sink or facet, I think Americans call them, from bleeding ears it is claimed.
Guede left shoe prints out of the murder room headed only to the front door, why would he take his shoes off and leave a footprint on a bath mat in the small bathroom, which is in the opposite direction of the front door, this seems unlikely
In my opinion it must belong to one of the others involved in the murder.
So my opinion that it was a joint enterprise murder means that the secondary party would not have to present in the room whilst the principal offender carried out the attack
I have posted our continued dialogue above as my comments were removed
Not sure why? Do you know at all
From my experience there are certain words and phrases that are automatically flagged and the post removed. I’ve had that happen to me on several occasions. One time I broke the post down into several smaller posts and found the offending phrase, though I had no idea what was wrong with it. I’ve seen nothing from you that would justify having a post deleted so suspect that’s what happened.
It is weird who moderates the page??
I’m sure their is a webmaster for the site but I think the bulk of the pruning is done thru automation. Did you see a message along the lines of “your post is awaiting moderation” when you posted it?
The final motivation report concluded that Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted for not having committed the crimes. So yes, they are innocent. Investigator established that it was a witch hunt when he proclaimed the ridiculous probable causes for already knowing Amanda was guilty without evidence. The police, prosecutors, and judges started with the assumption of guilt and fitted irrelevant facts together bound with fiction to present their opinions as evidence. Of course they framed Amanda and Raffaele with this biased picture that had no reality.
You can have your opinion that there were accomplices not yet responsible for Guede’s crimes, but your are pursuing phantoms that don’t exist. The reason that Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted was because there was no evidence of the supposed accomplices to identify anyone supposedly helping Guede. How could phantoms leave any evidence of themselves since they don’t exist?
As you have stated the final motivation report from the Knox and Solecitto trials which concluded there was not enough evidence due to a poor investigation to successfully return a Guilty verdict.
Can I remind you that in the separate Guede trial, the final motivation report issued by the same Supreme Court categorically stated Rudy Guede did not act on his own.
So it is not pursuing phantoms to want a new investigation into what was a horrific murder.
An investigation which starts fresh by not ruling anyone in or out of the suspect list
I think that would be a tiny piece of Justice
The final motivation report ended in a conclusion having the words “acquitted for not having committed the crimes.” As for Guede being convicted “with accomplices,” I don’t accept that that trial proved that opinion that he had accomplices. That opinion was based on re-enactments that do not take into consideration that Guede surprised Meredith or how Meredith would have reacted to being intimidated with a knife to her neck. You can want a new investigation all you want to, but it is a legal fact that Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted without recourse to a re-trial. That exonerates them. However much you suspect them or Amanda in particular, they or she cannot be re-tried. The judges have declared that any new facts cannot be evidence.
I similarly do not accept the motivation report should have in good conscience used those words, and I am confident they did not.
I believe Guede’s trials did prove he was part of a joint enterprise murder.
Unfortunately due to poor police and particularly forensic police work we may never know who the others were, only that there were others this point cannot by my reasoning be disputed.
I am not 100% certain but I do believe double jeopardy is a factor in Italy,
Double jeopardy is an outdated part of the legal system, that is why we in the UK dispensed with it some time ago.
The case given the two very different motivation reports in regard to the same crime has been very much left open and to say otherwise is most definitely a disservice to the person whose life was taken.
It may serve your agenda to dismiss these issues , however you are simply not being objective and I think one day you will regret your lack of interest in obtaining the actual truth supported by evidence, which would in my opinion only now be forthcoming from a new thorough and open investigation into the crime.
What is it about the prohibition of double jeopardy that is “outdated?” The reason that we in the “colonies” chose to incorporate it in our Constitution was because of how it was abused for political purposes by Britain. You can claim that that does not occur anymore, but the horrendous cost of defending oneself in a criminal trial makes double jeopardy in and of itself cruel and unusual punishment. The State also has to prosecute a case within a reasonable period of time, but once it prosecutes that case, and the defendant is acquitted, the State has no right to drag someone back into court because It wants another try at it. Also, I find it deplorable that other judiciaries let the appeals determine a harsher sentence than the trial court. The State has had ample time and resources to come to a proper sentence for a crime in the trial court. The defense should be the only side who can repeal a verdict or a sentence.
The Stephen Lawrence case is a fine example of how those responsible for a racially motivated murder were brought to Justice, something which would have been impossible if DJ was still in place
They were convicted on forensic evidence which science at the time could not gather
I am glad The UK has made this possible , probably because we are flexible in our approach to these matters and are not hampered by a fixed constitution
I am not sure what you hoped to achieve by going on about the Colonies and the oh so terrible redcoats
There is no doubt that advances in science can often solve crimes that previously could not be. However, if sufficient evidence isn’t available to prosecute then the case shouldn’t go to trial. In the Lawrence case only one of the two convicted men was affected by the repeal of DJ. The other guy wasn’t originally tried and therefore would have been prosecuted even if DJ hadn’t been repealed.
For every one case that you might be able to resolve correctly because DJ has been repealed, you likely would ensure hundreds of others will eventually lose or go broke trying to avoid it. While the state’s funds are inexhaustible, defendants have no such benefit. Therefore, without DJ protection ANYONE would be at risk of false imprisonment at the hands of an unscrupulous investigator or prosecutor.
I understand the frustration of discovering evidence after an acquittal and not being able to do anything about it, but the flip side is that without DJ protection the prosecution is free to risk presenting a poorly investigated case before a court knowing they have nothing to lose. I don’t know if there are statistics to back this up but if I had to guess I would think far more marginal cases go to trial after the repeal than before, and given how often courts get things wrong I don’t find this an acceptable “advancement” of the legal system. JMHO.
So what if you don’t care for pre-Revolutionary War history. The abuse of double jeopardy trials made an impression on the Founding Fathers of the United States. And it was the Hessian soldiers the British employed that stimulated more hatred from the former colonists. Keep in mind that Benjamin Franklin was plagiarizing someone British when he (Franklin) stated that it is better that 50 guilty criminals go free than one innocent falsely convicted of crimes not done.
As far as the Stephen Lawrence murder goes, I cannot determine if the defendants in that case did anything illegal to get their acquittal. While I think that police officer, prosecutors, or judges who have been caught in illegal actions should be punished, I don’t see why the illegal activities of others should cause the acquittal of defendants who did nothing illegal to obtain that acquittal should be punished for the illegal actions of others.
If it can be proven that a defendants in the U.S. has suborned the duty of a witness, police official, or other court officer including the prosecutor or judge or juror in obtaining an acquittal, that acquittal can be annulled and there would be no double jeopardy issue. But just claiming “new evidence” should not remove the ban on double jeopardy. It is too expensive and difficult for most people to defend themselves in criminal trials to allow this possibility of abuse that was so much a part of the history of the Colonies before we broke away from Britain.
The OJ phenomenon gets more reference than it deserves. Certainly it occurred during Jim Crow, but with the opposite effect.
Slightly passive aggressive of you
However in response I am uncertain why you feel the need to mention the American War of Independence, other than you are American and I am British
Yes we lost the War, but it was a very long time ago and does it really matter in 2016? In my opinion not in the slightest.
Does the fact the British lost make my opinion as a Briton less valid than an Americans opinion, the answer is a firm no.
Next you will be telling me I would be speaking German if it were not for you.
So let’s pre-empt that, by me thanking the Americans for their service in WW2 and respecting your loss.
Now am I allowed to continue offering my opinion? Or do you want to recruit a French person to bore me about the 100 years War and put this Britin firmly in her place .
Actually, the decision to write the Declaration of Independence in English was only one vote more than balloted for German. Who knows? Americans might be speaking German today. Forty percent of Americans claim German ancestors. I can trace my ancestors back ten generations to a British American. And you are wrong about Britain losing the Revolutionary War. We didn’t defeat Britain. Britain simply withdrew. I only bring up the Founding Fathers to demonstrate why Americans have the ban on double jeopardy. It was British abuse that caused the inclusion of that ban in our Constitution. Britain has always had its (and your) opinion about it, but I don’t share Britain’s (or your) opinion about it. Of course I could lecture you on how we derived the ban from Old English Common Law. Or maybe I could find something about it in French Enlightenment that inspired British Constitutionalism and the U.S. Constitution, but I think my own opinions about the unfairness of continuing the State’s legal attack on an acquitted defendant will suffice. It is costly physically, psychologically, and financially for an individual to defend him or herself against the limited resources of the State. A defendent should not have to do that over and over again. If the State with its unlimited resources cannot do the job right the first time within the statute of limitations, the citizen should not have to live under assumed guilt forever.
You had your already multiple shots at Amanda and Raffaele, and you lost.
The Declaration of Independence was one vote away from being written in German or German being adopted as the US national language is actually a myth.
I have not taken aim at anyone, let alone taken multiple shots at them.
I am not sure how discussing this case means I personally have lost. That is a peculiar statement to make
Also can you explain what British abuse conducted in the 1700s has to do with me.
You are just jealous because my surname is Washington, go on admit it
You really are absurd. I haven’t even noticed the middle part of your name until you mentioned it. I can trace my family’s name back to the time of William the Conqueror. I’m not saying I’m descended from William the Conqueror, but only that my ancestor was his servant. It makes things a little awkward for me being a U.S. citizen and still identifying as a servant of the British monarch.
It was a joke about my name and a Patriot such as yourself being jealous
British humour I think we call it
Sorry you did not get it:
You didn’t recognize British humor (humour) when I expressed it either.
Must be the Irish in me
Well, as you implied, I’m before your time. The character Betty Slocombe on “Are you being served” liked to emphasize her opinions by saying that she was unanimous about them. The humor is the question of how an individual is unanimous about anything. It is British humor since it was a British comedy.
Sofie, I find your comments disappointing. If you read the motivation reports from Guede’s trial you would know the basis on which they ruled multiple people was part speculation and part discredited evidence. Given that both sides had a vested interest in promoting the idea that Amanda and Raffaele were involved, and without them being represented, it is no surprise the courts ruled that way. But if you were being honest you wouldn’t lean on their ruling as “proof” of multiple assailants but would instead evaluate the evidence they claimed to use and form your own conclusions. You initially came across as somewhat open-minded but your recent posts are straight from the pro-guilt talking points… myths, agendas, etc.
What you’re saying is you believe in multiple attackers, even though the evidence doesn’t support it, and that you think it’s only by the grace of a screwed up investigation that no evidence to support this was found. You are doing exactly what the police did – you have formed a conclusion and now you insist on finding evidence to support it. No matter how long it takes you will never admit your conclusion is wrong, it will always be that you just haven’t found the evidence yet.
And exactly how do you think a “new” investigation can be carried out when there is nothing left of the crime scene and, ‘oddly enough’, all of the so called evidence against Amanda and Raffaele (read; knife blade and bra clasp ‘DNA’) is gone? Is your idea of a new investigation merely trying to get the same discredited theories in front of a new court and having them rule as you see fit? Because as far as I can tell that would be the only thing you could hope for. Never mind that Italian law dictates the case is closed, finished, finito.
There is no disservice to Meredith as the one person proven to be there at the time of her death has been sitting in jail. However, I do consider it a disservice to her family to continue to claim others are responsible and not allowing them some closure.
I may be disappointing, however I have read the MR from Guede’s trial and the Juficial truth in relation to his case, is that he is not the only person responsible for the murder.
To disillusion you further I agree with the ISC on this matter, about others being involved
Also it is ironic that you are accusing me in a lighthearted way I hope of leaning on an ISC ruling, because from my side of the fence as it were, I think that is exactly what you and many others are doing
There is no enthusiasm from Amanda supporters to really get to the bottom of this case, which sets off alarm bells to me.
Maybe you believe it is a case genuinely solved, but to me and it seems more and more others there are lots of unanswered questions, which is all down to the Italian Courts and in my opinion the innocence and guilt agenda setters,
You reference judicial truths but you personally have yet to make a case for multiple attackers. Can you, or are you leaning on that ruling to support a conclusion of Amanda and Raffaele being involved despite not being able to articulate why?
I’m not leaning on the ISC rulings at all. I can sit here and articulate my beliefs all day long. I agree with the ruling that there is no evidence of Amanda and Raffaele being involved. I disagree with their conclusion of multiple attackers. But unlike you, I will cite evidence and reason that got me there.
There is no enthusiasm because most people believe Guede was the lone attacker, he was convicted and he’s still serving time. Amanda and Raffaele have been acquitted. The case is over.
Perhaps if you could make a compelling case for why we should believe there were other attackers we could get on board with you, but all you keep doing is citing court findings regarding a matter they shouldn’t have even been ruling on.
After consideration, I decided not to post my theory on multiple attackers simply because I did not want a premeditated reference to distract from the point I am very much interested in making, which is there is a Judicial truth out there which states Guede did not act by himself. Which in my opinions means there are murderers at large, and that the case warrants a new or continued investigation because I believe the case is very much open
Nothing I have seen thus far has changed my mind
With all due respect, this doesn’t surprise me. As I noted in an earlier post, this is typical of what I have found with pro-guilt commentators. Unable to make a case for something, they either make an excuse for not trying to explain their point or they simply vanish.
Your comment is interesting because you have previously stated you thought the crime was unplanned but now you suggest there was premeditation.
Note that I didn’t ask you for a theory, I asked you to articulate what evidence you think proves (or strongly suggests) multiple attackers. But it now appears your reasons for believing multiple attackers is because you hold a theory of the crime that involves premeditation. This, in turn, proves that the reason you think the case should still be open is because Amanda and Raffaele are not in prison, not because there is evidence to prove other attackers remain at large.
You don’t need to make a point of a judicial truth of Guede having accomplices. No one disputes the courts made that ruling. What I’ve been asking you is what is the evidence that has YOU convinced there were accomplices. You are once again leaning on a court ruling rather than stating evidence and logic to agree with that ruling. And before you say I am doing the same thing, understand I will sit here and discuss this all day long, citing evidence, expert references and logic to explain my positions. I will never sit her and lean on a court ruling or the opinion of others to explain myself.
I have made my case known on other forums which ended up with me being bombarded with posters launching the IIP version of events at me. These people were not interested in a debate they simply just wanted to beat me into submission.
I know the innocence supporters
opinion on the multiple attackers off by heart.
I do not want to get into what would be a pointless tit for tat internet exchange, because been there done that and that is not a cop out, I simply want to look at the case from a different perspective that does not involve “guilters” locking horns with ” Knoxers” going over the same points time and time again.
If feel the need to defend Knox, that is fine, however you should not try to bully people who are genuinely interested the case from having an opinion , on what is now a notorious case
Perhaps you could point out where I have tried to ‘beat you into submission’ or bully you. I have asked several times, in a very respectful manner, what evidence you believe proves there were accomplices. As a matter of fact, I came to your defense and respectfully asked Tommy to not attack you so you would feel comfortable responding to my request.
I would also remind you that YOU were the one who willingly entered into a discussion on this board and I replied. I’m trying to have that discussion, but for some reason you refuse to explain what you think proves what is a very critical aspect of the crime.
Suggesting that I “feel the need to defend Knox” is not only unjustified but IS a cop out. I have argued my belief in the innocence of both Amanda and Raffaele, not because I *wanted* them to be innocent but because I believe the evidence proves conclusively of this. If you’re not interested in debating this point I would suggest you not post on these boards, or issue a disclaimer up front that you wish to express your opinion but don’t plan to explain how you got there. Just a thought.
I have had my mental health called into question by 2 of the 3 people responding to my posts.
I appreciate you have not, however you are asking to justify my opinion time and time again in regard to the multiple attackers theory.
I have learnt nothing productive can be achieved from head on confrontation especially when this case is involved.
So I assume you know the case, and you are aware of the reasons why the Italian Supreme Court stated Guede did not act on his own and the reasons why
So instead of confronting me , how about lets make this more interesting and it obvious you are keen to put the innocence side across in regard to this matter
So why don’t you Counter argue the ISC Judicial truth pertaining to the multiple assailants point by point
This way it seems less personal and that I am detached from the debate plus I will not be under attack from the Innocence massive.
Otherwise I do not cope all that well
I look forward to you addressing the points made by the ISC in the Guede case Final Motivation Report and I hope this a satisfactory solution and a challenge you will accept
Sofie, I have never asked you to ‘justify’ your opinion. I am also not confronting you, I’m trying to have an open and honest discussion. I was asking you to explain to me how you came to it. IOW, I want to understand why you think there were accomplices.
I have explained numerous times, including a post earlier on this board, but for you I will go over it again.
If you read through the Giordano MR, which is the ISC ruling on Guede’s appeal, he sites the following as reasons his court or the prior courts of appeal felt there were accomplices.
1. Raffaele’s DNA on the bra clasp.
2. Amanda’s DNA on the kitchen knife and Meredith’s DNA on the blade.
3. Knife wounds ruled to have been made by two different knives.
4. “footprints” not attributable to Guede in Meredith’s room.
5. The break-in was staged.
6. Capezzali testimony.
7. Curatolo testiony.
8. Print on bath mat claimed to be compatible with Raffaele.
9. Statements by Guede.
10. Luminol prints.
11. Amanda’s DNA on the sink and bidet.
12. Amanda’s “I was there” comment.
So what’s wrong with all of this…
1. Raffaele’s DNA was LCN only (i.e., very small amount) and was located on the bent metal hook of the bra clasp. When a bra is being worn this clasp is facing inward and up against another piece of fabric. It’s pretty much impossible to get DNA on it without leaving DNA traces elsewhere on the bra. But beyond that, there was only one test performed and then the SP allowed the clasp to rust so no further tests could be performed. These two aspect violate the rules of forensic DNA evidence and render the results unreliable. Further, it is entirely illogical to believe that the severed piece of bra clasp could sit in the middle of the floor of the room where a sexual assault / murder took place, have investigative teams process the scene for 47 days, turn the room completely inside out and NEVER notice and collect the clasp.
2. The knife is simply not compatible with the wounds. There is only one wound that it is not entirely incompatible with and that wound was made into soft tissue with a depth less than half the length of the blade. It is not reasonable to think someone stabbed someone with a knife but stopped less than half way without striking bone or cartilage. Further, that wound had bruising that would be consistent with the hilt striking the skin, suggesting the knife that made the wound was fully inserted and only stopped because the hilt hit. Finally, the blade tested negative for blood, negative for human biological material and negative for DNA. And remember, the knife was collected because “it was unusually” clean and the house smelled like bleach, but where the DNA was supposedly collected was out towards the tip of the blade, the easiest part to clean, and if bleach was used all DNA would have been destroyed.
3. There was nothing that suggested the wounds had to be made by two separate knives. Multiple experts ruled the wounds were consistent with a single knife which was much smaller than the kitchen knife.
4. These were actually shoe prints, not footprints, and it was proven they were actually partial prints from Guede’s shoe.
5. This was never proven. There is actually far more evidence to suggest it was a real break-in than not. In fact, the only thing they could claim proved a staged break-in was some glass – never documented by the investigation – on top of some clothes, but the scene was altered when they allowed Filomena into the room twice to look around and later remove things. The courts NEVER addressed the significant evidence that proved it was real.
6. Capezzali was an old woman with poor hearing. She said nothing of the hearing a scream or hearing people running until weeks later, and only after a reporter spoke to her. Testing by several people show it would be very difficult to hear a scream with the windows closed, as they were that night, and virtually impossible to hear people running on the stairs. Entirely impossible to know “two or more” running in opposite directions. To me, this was a clear sign of her being coached to make this claim. She contradicted herself by adding she read about the murder the following morning at around 11am when in fact the body wasn’t even found until after 1pm that day.
7. Curatolo, like Capezzali, said nothing for weeks after the crime and again, only came forward after meeting with the same reporter that met Capezzali. Curatolo contradicted himself numerous times, so much so that Hellmann thru him out of his court. Curatolo claimed the night he saw Amanda and Raffaele was the same night he saw people in costumes boarding disco buses. Unfortunately for the prosecution, this was the night before the murder. Interesting the police AND courts opted to dismiss this contradiction because Curatolo also claimed to remember seeing police in white suits at the cottage the next day. Selectively accepting evidence was a specialty of the police and courts in this case.
8. The print on the bathmat was not usable for positive identification, only to rule people out. Both the prosecution and the defense brought forward one ‘expert’ to testify the print was not compatible for the person they were testifying for. However, in the case of the prosecution’s witness, he only worked from photographs that had to be modified because the perspective was wrong, and this expert also got the shoe print identification wrong. The defense expert worked with the actual bath mat and is also the expert who set the prosecution expert straight on the shoe prints.
9. Once again the courts opted to accept Guede’s testimony regarding Amanda and Raffaele while ruling virtually everything else he said was a proven lie. Further, the courts ignored the fact that when Guede was secretly recorded talking to his friend while still on the run in Germany he stated Amanda wasn’t involved and he didn’t even know who Raffaele was. Further, he testified to seeing only one man, someone who was smaller than him. Raffaele is bigger than Guede.
10. The Luminol prints tested negative for blood and all but three tested negative for Meredith’s DNA yet the courts still concluded they were made from Meredith’s blood because the defense didn’t offer an explanation of what else they could be. Never mind that Luminol reacts to hundreds of other substances, or that there were two scientific test results, one of which is definitive, that said it wasn’t blood. The defense should not and does not need to identify the substance the print/splotch is made from. The prosecution needs to prove it’s blood and they failed to do that.
11. Amanda lived in the cottage and so her DNA should be in the bathroom. Further, the way the SP collected samples from the sink and bidet all but guaranteed they would collect Amanda’s DNA. They should have taken tiny samples, both of what they felt was blood and areas around the blood to determine if any DNA found in the blood sample could have come from the surrounding area. Instead, they swabbed huge areas at a time, rendering the sample all but useless.
12. Amanda was talking to her parents and it’s clear from the context of the conversation she was telling her parents she was there at Raffaele’s apartment. It was the police who misinterpreted the comment, just as they misinterpreted the “see you later” SMS message.
I am sure there is likely one or two more points someone might discern from the court documents, but in none of it do I find anything that contradicts the theory that Guede acted alone.
So now that I have acted in good faith and answered your question, how about you do the same and explain to me what of the evidence did you find both legitimate and compelling evidence to prove accomplices.
And BTW, you really need to have a thicker skin. I had no problems posting on PMF dot net despite the ridiculous restrictions and the nasty, personal attacks thrown at me for not being a believer of guilt. I could care a less. If you trust your conclusions and you are confident you can argue them, then you should never worry about doing so on a public forum. Just ignore those who are disrespectful or fail to address the subject being discussed. Most of the time they’re just trying to get under your skin.
Thank you for replying
I will go through your points, I think are important. Even though there is a strong Knox/ Solecitto bias in my opinion.
1.Firstly you have stated RS DNA on the Meredith’s bra clasp was detected by the the use of a LCN test.
You are wrong on this point, it was detected by the use of the standard test, The match is so strong there is no doubt it is his.
As I am not here to attribute blame, I will be balanced as say there there is a question of how it got on the clasp, The Defence claimed it there due to contamination of the crime scene
2.The knife was compatible with the wounds, however it was not compatible with all the wounds, which suggests more than one knife was used in the attack
Let’s say the knife siezed in RS kitchen was not used in the attack.
The wounds still suggest more than one knife.
This evidence on the knife was actually discovered using the LCN methods
LCN tests are in my opinion, an acceptable method of forensic testing, however in this case there are concerns about this test and in general LCN is controversial in the scientific community.
3.Multiple experts have not stated a single smaller knife was used
4. Guede’s footprints led from Meredith’s room straight out no diversions to the front door.
5.There is zero evidence that Guede broke in to the Villa, there is no evidence of him at the point of entry or anywhere in the room.
However if it was a break- in and we have no evidence at all it was Guede, then let’s say in all fairness it could have been his alleged accomplices this supporting the multiple attacker theory.
The witness are not important to the multiple attacker theory, as they are not expected to see and hear everything if anything at all
8. To say the Forensic expert worked solely off photographs is a clear attempt to mislead, They have access to the evidence
9. It should also be noted that Guede also said in his recorded Skype conversation to B ” I was scared they would say I was the only guilty person” a statement he repeated when apprehended by the Police in Germany
10. There are several more than 3 mixed DNA samples of Meredith and Amanda which were discovered throughout the Villa, nobody in my opinion has satisfactory explained these.
11. And 12. Not really relevant in my opinion
To me the lack of Defensive wounds point toward more than one attacker. Also I have said , I think this was a joint enterprise murder, which means the accomplices would not have physically been in the murder room,, they would be guilty of eithe giving aid, abetting, offering councels or procuring and items involved in the crime
BTW
I am not sure why you would tell me about your experience of PMF. Net, as I am not on that site, I am more than capable of defending myself, but I have found Americans quickly get offended by my aggressive, relentless defence and especially by my choice of language. The discussion quickly goes sour and descends into mayhem with me at the middle of it
I am attempting to turn over a new leaf and not get dragged down to the innocence supporter troll level
I hope my post is acceptable, it is a bank holiday in the UK and I do not have too much spare time to elaborate further at present, as I am going to Paris this evening for a few days, given the terror attacks last year, slightly nervous here
Sofie, hopefully you have a safe and enjoyable trip to Paris.
I’m sorry you think there is a heavy bias towards Amanda and Raffaele in my response. Unfortunately, since I was tasked to argue against the court’s reasoning it naturally can be taken as bias. However, the important thing is focusing on the facts. I will not attempt to alter your opinions, but will briefly respond to your comments.
1. Raffaele’s DNA on the clasp was within technical limits of LCN. This is because within the 1 ng sample there was six times more DNA of Meredith than Raffaele. Since LCN is considered to be less than 200 pg/ul, then this means Raffaele’s DNA was LCN. But again, remember, the discussion here is what evidence is there of an accomplice. This DNA trace of Raffaele is very small and ONLy found on the hook. I would challenge you to think of a way that Raffaele, if he was involved in the assault, could have gotten his DNA on the hook and no where else. I find that highly unlikely. And when you add to that the fact that sample 165B also showed at least three other male contributors, that the clasp lay on the floor for 47 days (how can that happen??), was improperly collected, amplified only once and then ruined to the point where it could no longer be tested, I find this not evidence of an accomplice.
2. I think you are misunderstanding the knife wounds. There is only one wound that the kitchen knife *could* have made (i.e., it could NOT have made any of the other wounds). However, the one wound if could have made could also have been made by the same knife that made the other wounds. In other words, there was NO evidence that PROVED two knives were used. The prosecution used circular logic in making this claim. They argued the kitchen knife was used in the murder, and that it could not have made all the wounds, therefore there had to be two knives. However, once you accept there is no evidence the knife was involved in the murder, then there is no argument to support a two knife theory. And remember, the depth of the one wound the knife *could* have made was less than half the length of the blade and the wound had bruising consistent with a knife hilt hitting the skin. It is not reasonable to think someone repeatedly sunk the knife into Meredith’s neck – something that was necessary to create a wound as wide as this was – and yet never go any deeper than half the blade.
2A. LCN is highly debatable because of the incredible care required to test at such low levels. However, it’s not a question of whether LCN is acceptable (and remember, Stefanoni wasn’t certified for LCN profiling nor did her lab take any of the required precautions), it’s a question of whether there was any biological trace of Meredith on the knife at all. Most pro-guilt commentators seem to forget a very accurate human antibody test was done and was negative. This means there was no human biological material on the blade. So, no blood, no human material and no DNA (“too low” multiple times).
3. Multiple experts have stated there was nothing concerning the wounds that would exclude a single knife causing them. I didn’t say they claimed a single knife, they were saying no evidence of multiple knives. Big difference.
4. Guede’s bloody shoe prints heading straight to the door are easily explained (just theory, of course, but reasonable and impossible to rule out). As he is leaving Meredith’s room he steps in her blood and tracks it to the front door, with the print getting fainter and fainter. By the time he gets to the door there is nothing left of the blood on his shoe. He then realizes he needs the key to open the door. He goes back and grabs her keys but this time he doesn’t step in any blood.
5. Remember the context of the discussion. The courts ruled the break-in staged and this was a major factor in their reasoning of an accomplice. So it’s not whether it was Guede or not but rather, was the break-in real or staged. Filomena’s room as not very well searched at all… an unfortunate result of confirmation bias by the police. They determined the break-in was staged so I assume they didn’t feel a careful analysis was required. However, as I stated earlier, there is far more physical evidence to imply a real break-in than for staging. To wit; the fresh damage to the external side of the inner shutter consistent with a rock striking it. The embedded glass in the wood. The glass sprayed across the room almost to the door. The glass underneath the clothing. And contrary to claims by the prosecution and believed by the court, the climb up, when standing on the top rung of the security grate below, was not at all difficult to do.
And btw, to suggest that if it was a real break-in it could have been an accomplice of Guede, thereby supporting a multiple attacker scenario is irrelevant. The issue on the table is evidence to support the theory of multiple attackers. Anything is possible, but to consider such a scenario is not at all proving such.
I did not say the witnesses were important, the courts did. And the courts used the testimony of both Capezzali and Curatolo to suggest multiple attackers when neither was credible, and in fact Curatolo’s didn’t prove multiple attackers, it was cited by the courts in trying to paint Amanda and Raffaele into the crime. When you think about it, this in incredibly WRONG for a court even consider when Amanda and Raffaele are not there to challenge it.
8. I am not making any effort to mislead, I am stating a fact. Rinaldi did NOT work from the actual bathmat. He did ALL of his calculations working from a photograph. I suggest you read the Massei report, page 352.
9. Correct, but that is because he is telling Giacomo that there was one male, smaller than Guede, who committed the crime. He was afraid the police would think Guede committed the crime and not this other person. Nothing in his comments suggested more than one attacker.
10. I am only aware of two outside the bathroom, both revealed by Luminol. One in the hallway and one in Filomena’s room. But both of those samples tested negative for blood, suggesting they weren’t related to the crime. But remember, Amanda and Meredith lived in the cottage together so finding both of their DNA in some samples doesn’t prove much of anything. That’s true for ANY crime where DNA of the resident(s) is found. They live there, their DNA should be there. It’s tough to make much of case from it.
I agree 11 and 12 are not really relevant, but again, these are things cited by the courts that tried Guede in concluding he had accomplices. I’m glad we agree.
Lack of defensive wounds can also mean a surprise attack, the victim being quickly disabled, the victim not fighting their attacker for various reasons (fear, thinking it might help to avoid getting killed, etc.), and so forth. And btw, there were some defensive wounds, just not an extensive amount. I don’t mean to suggest lack of defensive wounds can’t be interpreted as multiple attackers – it is a fair conclusion to make – but you do need to remember there are many reasons why that might be so.
I was not aware Italy had a Joint Enterprise law? But even if it did, I still don’t see where there is any evidence to support a conclusion that others assisted Guede in committing the crime.
I mentioned my experiences posting on dot net because you were citing people insulting you here as a reason not to get into your theories or rationale for concluding accomplices. The comments I’ve seen here directed towards you are cuddly and lovable compared to the crap thrown at pro-innocent posters on dot net. My point was you can either let that bother you, throw crap back at them or just ignore them.
Anyway, all just food for thought. Thank you for responding.
As I do not have much time
You are incorrect about the bra clasp
The RS profile was detected using the SMG+ test that is a fact, the technical limits stuff is a red herring in my opinion
This explains the SMG+ test in greater detail
The standard DNA test (SGM+) is used where an identifiable stain such as blood or semen is found. The smallest bloodstain visible with the naked eye (c. 50 – 100 cells) contains enough DNA for this test.
This analyses eleven areas (also called markers or loci) of DNA, consisting of ten variable areas and a sex test.
These areas are copied 28 times and instrumental analysis used to capture and analyse the result.
This test is used to produce DNA profiles for adding to the National DNA Database (NDNAD).
This type of test is used worldwide, and a variety of commercial systems looking at different areas (markers, loci) of DNA are available.
Some samples are invisible to the naked eye, in poor condition due to external factors e.g. fire and water, or have been retained from crimes that occurred many years ago. These may have too little DNA for the standard test to be successful.
This information is copied from the Crown Prosecution Service website
Just to clarifythe point that RS profile was detected on the bra clasp using the SMG+ method and not the LCN method.
There is however a a sizeable question mark over the collection and testing by the Forensic Police in this investigation which on its own does warrant a new investigation for the purpose of atonement by the Italian system if nothing else.
Yes Paris is a hour and a half flight and London is 2 hours on the train, Lucky I suppose Mainland Europe is so close,
Sofie,
From Raffaele’s appeal;
“The total amount of DNA on the bra clasp was 1.14 ng. Raffaele
Sollecito’s DNA was between 1/6th and 1/10th of the total, which puts it
between 100 and 200 pg.”
What constitutes LCN seems subject to debate, but in my research it would appear under 200 pg is almost always considered LCN.
Further, if you read Stefanoni’s testimony she is very deceptive in providing specific values, something that I find unimaginable for the lead forensic scientist while giving testimony in court. However, she is quite clear the sample was around 1 ng, and that Raffaele’s is roughly one sixth of Meredith’s, plus there were three other partial profiles involved. So again, we’re talking a trace that is under 200 pg.
When you return and have some time could you please cite your sources where SGM Plus was indicated. I would summarize 165B as follows;
– Found only on the meta hook.
– Sample was between 1 and 1.4 ng
– Raffaele’s DNA was between 1/6 and 1/10 of Meredith’s in that sample.
– Raffaele’s DNA trace was between 100-140 pg, making it LCN.
– Amplification was done only once.
– The clasp was destroyed while in the possession of the SP.
– Most of Raffaele’s peaks were 150 RFU or above.
My sources are;
– Stefanoni court testimony
– Lab reports & test results documents
– Raffaele’s appeal document
– The C & V report
It’s important to remember the context of this discussion. Does this evidence suggest multiple attackers. Given the overwhelming amount of physical evidence found of Guede, I find this minor, isolated sample of someone who had spent time in the cottage far from compelling.
Again you are incorrect as the the test which detected the profile of RS was the SGM+ test, there is no arguing this fact.
Also there is zero evidence of Guede in Filomena’s room another fact.
Yet I am sure you support the innocence theory that Guede gained access into the property via this room after smashing the window.
So either the Forensic Police missed evidence of Guede or he was never in the room
If you believe they missed evidence in Filomena’s room then it is also plausible to believe they missed evidence throughout the property.
That is not an unreasonable conclusion would you not agree
Then please provide a citation or other evidence to support the claim. Both Stefanoni’s testimony and Raffaele’s appeal makes it clear there was less than 200 pg of Raffaele’s DNA in the sample, which makes it LCN. I will quote both of them if you don’t have the ability to look it up yourself.
Conversely, all you’re doing is making a statement but providing nothing to back it up.
There is no doubt the investigation by the SP was seriously flawed and so I wouldn’t be surprised if evidence was missed, but plausibility is not proof of anything. There is no forensic evidence to indicate who committed the break-in, but there is significant forensic evidence to show the break-in is real.
Now you are using the same old tired argument. The police believed the break-in was staged. As such, they spent very little time in FIlomena’s room investigating it. The same can not be said for Meredith’s room. Further, you can not equate the point of a break-in with the scene of a violent, bloody murder in terms of how difficult it would be to not leave a forensic trace of yourself even if both scenes were investigated equally well, which they were not.
At the end of the day there is a cottage that has been broken into, a woman has been sexually assaulted and murdered and the only forensic evidence of an intruder that was found belonged to Guede, and that evidence was significant. Why the pro-guilt crowd refuses to accept the obvious or tries to spin evidence where none exists is anyone’s guess.
Hmmm… why do so many discussions with the pro-guilt come to an abrupt halt when requests are made for citations or other evidence to support the argument they are making?
I see Sofie still hasn’t provided a shred of evidence to support her claim that Raffaele’s DNA on the clasp wasn’t LCN.
It is a matter of record the clasp was tested using the standard test and not LCN
Sofie, LCN refers to how much of a sample exists. Yes, LCN profiling typically requires numerous other safeguards and the actual process differs in terms of number of amplification samples, but Real Time PCR is still used in either case. The clasp had a certain quantity of DNA. Meredith’s DNA was about six times greater than that of Raffaele. This means Raffele’s DNA was of a quantity that is considered LCN. I don’t have the actual numbers in front of me but they are well documented in court records.
Wrong the profile of RS was discovered on the bra clasp using the SGM+ test
The standard DNA test (SGM+) is used where an identifiable stain such as blood or semen is found. The smallest bloodstain visible with the naked eye (c. 50 – 100 cells) contains enough DNA for this test.
This analyses eleven areas (also called markers or loci) of DNA, consisting of ten variable areas and a sex test.
These areas are copied 28 times and instrumental analysis used to capture and analyse the result.
This test is used to produce DNA profiles for adding to the National DNA Database (NDNAD).
This type of test is used worldwide, and a variety of commercial systems looking at different areas (markers, loci) of DNA are available.
Some samples are invisible to the naked eye, in poor condition due to external factors e.g. fire and water, or have been retained from crimes that occurred many years ago. These may have too little DNA for the standard test to be successful.
You seem to be hung up on SGM Plus, which is just one of many Real Time PCR amplification kits. It doesn’t matter. The quantity of DNA contained in the sample, and the fact that Raffaele’s was approximately 1/8 of that sample (Meredith’s was 6x that of Raffaele, plus other minor contributors) indicates the sample was of LCN quantity. LCN only means there is so little DNA that additional PCR amplification cycles need to be run in order to get reliable readings. It also means the sample is so small that additional precautions must be taken to ensure the DNA isn’t from contamination.
I have no idea why you mention visibility of samples, cell counts, amplification cycles, NDNAD (UK’s DNA DB, NOT used in Italy), etc., but it is all non sequitur.
What you DO need to look at is what constitutes an LCN sample. That is specific to the discussion. If a sample of DNA is only 100 pg then it is considered LCN and should be amplified and evaluated accordingly. Combining it with 5 ng of a different DNA sample doesn’t change the fact that there is only 100 pg of that specific DNA and thus is remains LCN. If you read the trial testimony you would see this discussed at length. The defense argued the ratio of 1:8, and thus LCN. Stefanoni said it was 1:6 and therefore not LCN. However, Stefanoni failed to account for the other profiles found in the sample which proves her 1:6 ratio incorrect.
Zzzzzz you cannot accept you are wrong WOW.
Explains everything really attempting to twist the truth to suit either an agenda or in this instance to cover up a mistake.
I feel like I am arguing for the sky is blue and the grass is green whilst you are opposing me stating the sky is orange and the grass is pink.
Anyway I will leave you with your misconception and lack of reality and hope to see you wheel this account out and repeat your narrative when and wherever you are called into action.
Good luck and best wishes
Sofie, to claim I am wrong is to claim data presented by the Scientific Police during the trial was wrong. The quantity of DNA obtained from the clasp, the percentage of DNA from that sample attributed to Raffaele and what constitutes LCN profiling is all well documented. If you think you can argue any of these points, go for it. Otherwise you should just admit the amount of DNA attributed to Raffaele is within the range of LCN and, as such, represents very weak evidence – albeit the only evidence – against Raffaele.
Not that I expect you to try… such is the nature of the guilter’s argument. You post about visible vs non-visible samples, cell counts (of which there is zero correlation between the two), the UK’s DNA DB and which PCR kit was used to amplify the sample – all the while you ignore the key element of the discussion, which is “how much DNA attributed to Raffaele was found and is this considered LCN”. I don’t need to repeat a narrative. The evidence speaks for itself. There’s a reason why there are dozens of DNA experts worldwide who have concluded what I am saying here and none who would support the prosecution’s conclusions.
I remain curious as to why you prefer to deny the facts (and please don’t claim that you don’t – you refuse to address the quantity of DNA extracted and amplified from sample 165B or the percentage, or ratio, of Raffaele’s DNA to Meredith’s as well as the other minor contributors. These are the ONLY facts that are relevant) but I suppose I’ll just have to chalk it up to you being one of the handful of guilters who simply prefer to close their eyes than see the truth.
Hahahahahahahahaha
Truly delusional and a clear lack of understanding on your part
However it is remarkable you believe you are indeed correct in relation to this evidence when you are not.
However when in doubt call someone a guilter and go about your day in ignorant bliss.
What is the saying you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink, now I get that saying.
rydych yn gwastraffu fy amser.
Hwyl fawr
All the Best
Sofie
OK, why not cut all the nonsense and tell us;
1. What was the quantity of DNA for sample 165B
2. What was the ratio of DNA between Meredith and Raffaele within that sample.
3. What is the accepted quantity of DNA to be considered LCN?
You SHOULD be able to answer these three questions if you understand what you are talking about and know the facts.
“However it is remarkable you believe you are indeed correct in relation to this evidence when you are not.”
Care to explain what you mean by this comment? I mean, there IS a quantity of DNA and there is a ratio of Major (Meredith) to Minor (Raffaele) and there is an internationally recognized quantity of DNA that constitutes LCN. So what am I missing here?
Yes, standard Real Time PCR process was used on the sample. That doesn’t change the fact that the amount of DNA belonging to Raffaele was considered LCN DNA. Typically, if a small sample (i.e., <200 pg) is collected the sample is treated as LCN DNA and undergoes additional amplification cycles. In this case, since the sample was larger than that it was not considered LCN DNA. However, since the sample contained six times more DNA from Meredith than Raffaele, as well as DNA from other donors, the total amount of DNA from Raffaele was well under 200 pg and thus was, in itself, LCN DNA.
Hmmm it is funny how the support profiles are wheeled out every time anyone questions anything about this case, then the disappear as if by magic!
I haven’t a clue what you mean. Care to rephrase or explain further?
I believe cold cases are investigated years after the crime was committed and have resulted in successful prosecutions.
The Lawrence case in the UK was a high profile murder case, which serves as supporting my point new investigations can help to solve crimes and restore the publics faith in Justice
I can think of hundreds of cases where advances in science allowed cold cases to be solved. But there are two differences;
1. This isn’t a cold case. There’s been a conviction.
2. You can’t undo the mistakes made during the investigation that would render anything new uncovered after this much time as unreliable.
After all, this is the case where a severed bra clasp, laying in the middle of the floor of the bedroom of the victim of a sexual assault/murder was left uncollected for 47 days while investigators turned the room inside out. Only after forensic analysis revealed there was nothing connecting Raffaele to the crime did they bother to collect it and then, miraculously, then find a speck of Raffaele’s DNA. Only enough to test once, apparently, and then, purely by coincidence, the clasp is improperly stored and left to rust so it could never be tested again. No amount of time or advancement of science is going to get around such a colossal screw-up as that. Or how about the knife that was collected from the house that smelled of bleach, which was selected because it was unusually clean and then miraculously reveals a speck of Meredith’s DNA. Only enough to test once, apparently, and located in a striation that could never be located afterwards. When tests reveal starch on the blade we are told then asked to believe that the blade wasn’t cleaned with bleach (so much for the bleach smell or the vanishing bleach receipts), as bleach would have destroyed any DNA present, and so much for the meticulous scrubbing, as the DNA supposedly was found toward the tip of the blade, the easiest part to clean thoroughly.
It’s these types of keystone kop screw-up’s that seals the case. IMHO, the only thing time and science will do is reaffirm the injustice done to Amanda and Raffaele.
My opinion is the case is now cold and still open.
My reasons are as follows, from a legal point of view. There are two Judicial truths established after two separate trials involving three defendants.
The first Judicial truth is , and this is one you will like, Knox and Solecitto were acquitted and took no part in the murder.
The second Judicial truth is Guede was convicted of Murder, however he was not solely responsible.
There we can conclude that Meredith was murdered by more than one person, Guede is in custody, Knox and Solecitto were not involved therefore we have an open/ cold case because the Judicial truth clearly states there are persons unknown at present who are along with Guede responsible for murder who are not incarcerated
I Think that is a fair assessment of the combined final rulings, which became Judicial truths handed down by the ISC
Sofie, it’s not a matter of me ‘liking’ the decision… I have no skin in the game. It’s what I consider to be an obvious and correct decision.
As for the judicial truths… I don’t buy it for a second. I can quote you verbatim what the ‘logic’ was in coming to the conclusion of more than one attacker and don’t believe any of it stands up. IMHO the courts were simply wrong. Guede’s trial should have been only to establish his culpability, nothing more. It was in his interest to argue more than one person. The prosecution was perfectly fine with that since they had Amanda and Raffaele up next. No one in any of Guede’s trials were there to challenge that conclusion.
So… never mind what the courts said, why do YOU think there was more than one attacker? What evidence ‘proves’ Guede didn’t commit this alone?
A new investigation sole purpose would be to establish who is responsible for the Murder of Meredith, which in my opinion is a worthy cause.
When someone is taken from you in tragic circumstances, you never get closure
You just muddle through without them.
Sophie has a long history of being a troll. She writes these insanely long posts in attempt to take over discussion threads. She is very good at it.
Sometimes I get hopeful of finding someone who leans towards guilt but is willing to have an honest, open minded discussion. I get the sense Sofie tried to present herself as such initially, but her comments exposed her as pro-guilt. I still think there is someone out there who will fit that description, but then, I still think the Loch Ness monster might also exist so….
Yeah, chances are Bigfoot exist as well.
In the UK we have a prison system whose primary objective is to rehabilitate those within it, loss of Liberty is ample punishment in my opinion.
Again in the UK, the average custodial sentence for a person found guilty of a single murder and who is of previous good character is 15 years. Therefore I do not think I am in a position to be critical of a similar European system.
My previous point which was ignored is that I believe Meredith was murdered in a joint enterprise killing.
Therefore in my opinion Justice has failed.
As for the ECtHR it will be interesting to see how the application develops over time.
However this Court is a particularly hated institution in Europe, as it seen to on many occasions deny Justice rather than uphold it.
I believe there have been indications the UK may leave the Council of Europe and instead have a British Human Rights Act, rather than being hamstrung by the ineffective ECtHR
We can only hope.
I was only referring to what Italy would have sentenced Guede to under their normal sentencing guidelines. And in the US, we do have a system of parole to allow people who have been rehabilitated to get out early, but one thing they must do is accept responsibility and Guede has never done that.
I did not ignore your previous point.. see response below.
I don’t know enough about the ECHR to comment on that. I do believe Amanda was coerced into naming Lumumba and did not do so deliberately and of her own free will. I also believe she was a suspect long before the interrogation of 5/6 Nov and the police played the system so they could keep her from a lawyer. I would expect the ECHR to come to the same conclusion, but we’ll see.
There is no real proof that Guede needed anyone’s help in committing his crimes against Meredith. It is only speculation and opinion that he had accomplices which speculation and opinion was primarily inspired by the desire of the prosecutors and judges to share enough of Guede’s guilt with Amanda and Raffaele to accuse them of crimes they didn’t do.
The ISC believed Guede did not act alone, the same ISC who acquitted the former suspects due to the failings of those involved in the investigation
Why do I have to believe the reasons the ISC gave for believing that Guede had to have accomplices? And did you miss the conclusion at the end of the final motivation report saying that Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted for not having committed the crimes? The lack of any possible evidence was the reason the final motivation report gave for not referring the case back for re-trial.
They were acquitted due to lack of evidence and the ISC quite clearly put this failing on the police and prosecutor.
The line you believe is the standard acquittal in Italy, the only one the Judges are able to give
However if you look at what was said before that you will see I am correct in the reasoning offered by the Judges as to why the prosecution failed, not because they were not guilty but because the investigation was shoddy and poor and it failed very dramatically in my opinion.
You can believe what you wish, but the acquittal is still for not having committed the crime to me. As for the reasons the judges gave, they rejected the whole case as it was and declared that no new evidence was possible. You can believe that Amanda and Raffaele were only acquitted because the police didn’t do their job, but I accept that no evidence was possible because Amanda and Raffaele could not have left any evidence since they were not there.
They were found innocent because there was no evidence to tie them to the crime. If they had charged you or I we would be acquitted for the same reason.
I am not sure found innocent is a legal sound expression that is used within any Court system.
“Not having committed the crime” Translation=innocent. Word play must be your favorite game.
“Reasonable doubt”
Translation = possibly guilty but not enough evidence to secure a conviction
Why would there not be enough evidence? Possibly because the initial investigation was flawed, unless you think the investigation was not sub- standard that is
The court clearly stated there was NO evidence to suggest they were involved in the crime. There is no ambiguity to that statement. Zero evidence means not involved.
What you’re doing is saying “well, they -could- be guilty only we have no evidence of that because the investigation was so screwed up”. Using that logic there should still be dozens of people who could be “possibly guilty”
Eight years and there is nothing to suggest they were involved. You might as well just admit you were convinced by media and pro-guilt websites that they were involved and *nothing* is going to change your mind. Either they find new evidence that proves it or you’ll stick to your “no evidence because of flawed investigation” theory. They can not win with you.
The Court actually stated there was no evidence and clearly placed the blame for lack of evidence on a flawed investigation.
I am sure you would like to believe I was convinced by the Media and Guilt sites, However the truth of the matter is I have looked at this case myself and I have actually spent far more time online in the company of innocence supporters listening to the arguments presented by then
Now we have established I am capable of rational thought and reasoned debate
Can I ask which innocence sites have convinced you to hold the entrenched position you currently hold and probably have held for a number of years.
I do not think my opinions are outlandish but rather plausible and truthful.
Yes, the court ruled there was no evidence and yes, the court ruled the investigation was seriously flawed… but the fact that the investigation was flawed does not, in any way, therefore suggest there must be something else that was missed.
No site convinced me.. my conviction is based on my own analysis. To be honest, I spent most of my time early on with Huff Post, PMF (both of them) and TJMK. I found out about IA (IIP) a little later, and ISF (JREF) after that. Entrenched suggests ‘dug in’ and deliberately fighting to stay there. That would be a misnomer. I am extremely confident in my conclusions but they’re based on careful analysis of the facts, not emotions or the opinions of a website.
I never thought you were untruthful nor would I call your opinions outlandish, but I don’t consider most of them plausible.
So I will ask you again – never mind the ‘judicial truth’ regarding multiple attackers… what evidence do YOU think exists that suggests more than one attacker?
The investigation was a disaster, so much so I believe a new investigation is warranted, how could one not be? Given the abject failure of the initial proceedings.
My opinion is a fact finding probe should be welcomed by anyone remotely interested in obtaining a final resolution
IF I thought there was something that remained to be discovered I would absolutely embrace such a probe. However, given that I am very much convinced that (1) the correct person, Guede, has already been convicted and (2) there is no evidence to suggest someone other than Guede was involved, I don’t welcome such a probe. It seems like a never ending, desperation grab by those who were convinced Amanda and Raffaele were involved and refuse to let that go.
There was no reasonable doubt about their innocence. You are incorrigible. You need help,seriously.
If you can only offer passive aggressive comments in reply to my opinion
What is the point of your input? in what should be a civil debate
It is a poor reflection on yourself if all you have to offer is insults.
I would rather you tell why you disagree with me and offer a counter argument instead of insinuating in a passive aggressive manner that I am in need of help or that I am thick
I do not want to be abused by strangers on the Internet, I want to talk about this case from my point of view and express the way I see it without any nastiness
Surely that is not too much to ask
Just because Tommy considers you frustrating enough to be evasive about the issue doesn’t mean he didn’t have a valid point. There was no reasonable doubt about Amanda’s and Raffaele’s innocence. Tommy should not have tried to offer you advice concerning your mental health, but maybe he had a point there also.
I think thou dos’t protest too much. What is the point of your input? You have been proven wrong over and over again yet you carry on with the same ludicrous arguments that the top court has rejected. What I stated is true,you are incorrigible. You want another trial. News flash. it ain’t gonna happen. A&R are innocent and should never have been charged.
It was a result of incompetence and over zealousness that they were charged in the first place. Any further digging will only reveal more of the same ineptness and malice on the part of the police and prosecutors and prove nothing that hasn’t already been opined by the top court.
The Top Court as you so quaintly put it opined that Guede did not act alone.
A Judicial truth you are desperate to brush under the carpet.
Fact is the case is classified as open due to this fact and no amount of moaning or groaning and being aggressive and rude on your part is ever going to change this fact.
Also please do prove me wrong about this fact, I will not hold my breath but maybe you should whilst counting to 10 backwards.
Word aren’t enough
Love
Your Sofie XXXXXX
C’mon guilter troll,you know that the case is closed regarding A&R they are happily going on with their lives while you pathetically chase ghosts. You lost,get over it.
Tommy, could you do me a favor and not antagonize Sofie. I realize you are absolutely free to do what you want but I’m still waiting for her to articulate WHY she is so convinced there was more than one attacker beyond just citing “judicial truth”. I’m afraid you’ll give her a valid reason to ditch the chat, which is exactly what I’ve seen hundreds of times over the years whenever a pro-guilt commentator gets boxed into a corner and can’t respond to a question.
Did you notice that they let Rudy Guede out for 36 hours so he could “feel the sunshine”?
Sorry that is not true at all,
Let’s get this right, it is you who is not listening to any of the proposals offered by your peers. It is you who has launched into ad hominem attacks. It is you who engages in straw man arguments. Your posts have no relevance that have no substance and are only made in my opinion to intimidate and disrupt.
That makes you the troll or defender of all things AK, not much difference from what I can tell anyways
No. Possibly guilty would be reasonable suspicion. Reasonable doubt means that the evidence does not prove guilt possibly because there was no evidence. Since there was no probable cause to suspect guilt, then there is only innocence. It’s just too bad you consider the investigation was flawed. The investigation could be flawed from your standpoint since there was no evidence to be found.
If you don’t think that “innocent” is a term used within any Court system, you cannot say that acquitted does not mean innocent.
Semantics shouldn’t matter. You are either proven innocent or presumed innocent. In this case they are presumed innocent because there was no evidence to suggest otherwise and we all start out with a presumption of innocence. If they had had an ironclad alibi they would have been proven innocent, in which case saying “They were found innocent” would be appropriate.
So on one hand you telling me you do not have to believe the ISC ruling concerning Guede, which of course you don’t but on the other hand you are asking me if I missed the ISC ruling about Knox and Solecitto as though I should believe it because the ISC ruled it, you do see the irony in your statement I hope
I don’t care if you don’t accept that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, but you cannot say the court did not acquit them for not having committed the crime. I don’t care if you believe that Guede had accomplices, but you cannot expect me to believe that just because the court ruled he did have accomplices. I don’t deny that the court said he had accomplices, but I do say the court is wrong for saying it. Guede did not have accomplices. Amanda and Raffaele were exonerated of the accusation they participated in Guede’s crimes.
So you are admitting the ISC has in your opinion made an incorrect ruling .
I clearly stated the formerly accused were acquitted by the ISC, more than once on this discussion thread.
I feel that I am being objective concerning this matter
There seem to be a lot of I don’t care if they or you think or say that coming from you, why is that?
Are people such as myself not allowed to take an interest in this case and express their thoughts on the matter?
If you had read back in my comments, you would find that I have questioned opinions of the ISC all along. I’m not sure what you think being “objective” means. I have never accepted anything about this ridiculous case against Amanda and Raffaele. Now if being “objective” means acknowledging that the court did indeed convict Guede WITH unnamed accomplices, I readily agree that it did and that the ISC confirmed that conviction with accomplices. But I don’t see how objective means that I have to agree with that decision just because its a fact the courts and ISC decided it. But where have I stated that you could not express your wrongheaded thoughts? I’ve never said that you could not think for yourself or that you had to accept my thoughts on the subject, but how does that prevent me from expressing my thoughts on your opinion?
Exactly you do not have to agree with a ruling handed down by the ISC on the Guede trial
Similarly nobody has to agree with ruling they returned in relation to the Knox/ Solecitto trial either.
However both are Judicial truths and are legally binding.
Also you passive aggressiveness is back , if you could cut that out that would be lovely.
Objective to me means not being influenced by personal feelings or opinions
Something I feel you most certainly are, hence you lack objectivity in regard to the case and Amanda Knox, who you defend like your life depended on it
So you can gladly express your thoughts, however now I have established in my mind, your lack of objectivity then your words will not hold the same weight, that an unbiased commentators will hold.Not that they are any less important mind you,just that I know and you know they are only posted to serve an agenda it feels like to me. Which is ok, I just like to know where I stand and what I am dealing with.
I try to be as civil as I can be and hope this discussion is conducted within a friendly environment.
Of course I am “passive aggressive” in my defense of Amanda’s and Raffaele’s innocence. When I perceive hostility to my convictions, I will push back thank you very kindly. I am used to vulgar sarcasm, intimidation, pointless ridicule, and obscenity for my opinions, and being British, you should know exactly what I mean by “vulgar.” Judicial Truths decided by the Italian courts have no authority over my opinions. If you quote authority at me for Italian judicial truths, I can do the same even if you think I am being contradictory. It is my opinion from the very first time I read about this case against Amanda and Raffaele that they were railroaded for whatever political reasons the Italian Judiciary may have had. I found no legitimate probable cause to suspect Amanda or Raffaele of having anything to do with the crimes that Guede committed against Meredith. I have found no facts that proved anything without the bias the police, prosecutors, and judges used to interpret the facts. You can be as skeptical of what I say because of my personal feelings or opinions, but I refuse to give them up since they inform me of the absurdity of what the Italian Judiciary did to Amanda and Raffaele. You are free to weigh my words with whatever standard you wish, but if you choose to criticize my words, please explain what standards you are using in that criticism so that I can understand what you mean.
Sofie, do you not understand that in order for a court to make an informed decision they need to see an argument presented from all sides? So if Guede was interested in claiming others were present because he felt it would minimize his culpability, and if the prosecution was interested in claiming others were present because without that they couldn’t prosecute Amanda and Raffaele, then how can you accept as a legitimate ‘judicial truth’ that others were present. And WHY was Guede’s court even addressing that point, let alone issuing a judicial truth regarding it. It should not have been within their mandate. The ONLY thing they should have been ruling on was whether Guede was involved in killing Meredith. He was and he was convicted. The court had no right ruling others were involved when no one was there to argue otherwise.
So again – go back to the MR’s from Guede’s trial, and especially the Giordano report. Look at what that court states are the reasons for ruling others were involved. There is nothing there that can stand up to scrutiny. They speculated, they erred and then they made a ruling on something that should not have been within their mandate. And rather than you evaluating that, you merely point to that decision and claim since they said so then it must be. I look at their argument and it appears very clear and obvious there is NOTHING to prove more than one person was involved, and the absence of evidence of more than one person there is positive evidence to support the conclusion. You dismiss this as the result of a screwed up investigation.
I disagree, I believe wholeheartedly that the investigation was not of a standard to establish who was and was not involved in the killing, it clearly lacks any credibility in my opinion
So to rely on it to prove anything really is utter folly as far as I am concerned
However the Courts have relied upon it to issued two judicial truths and it is all we have to go on at the moment
I am surprised you rely so heavily on this investigation to support your beliefs
I understand the Courts had all the information presented at the Guede trial to make an informed decision from
Sofie, you are confusing points here.
There is no doubt Guede was in the cottage and in Meredith’s room as she lay dying. His palm print, his shoe prints and his DNA inside Meredith can not be disputed. He has also admitted he was there.
There is no evidence of anyone else being involved in the crime. Whether this is because there WAS no one else involved or because the investigation failed to detect them can be debated till the cows come home. But at the end of the day, the investigation is all you can rely on.
What surprises me is your steadfast belief that others were involved even though all you can offer to support that conclusion is the investigation failed to find the evidence to prove this. In other words, on what basis do you conclude others were involved. I’ve asked you a half dozen times now and all you can do is recite what the courts concluded. Courts are not infallible and the arguments they used to conclude ‘others’ were involved is easily proven bogus. So one last time… what do YOU think the evidence is of other attackers?
There is however a Judicial truth in place which states Guede Had accomplices so it is a little more than speculation
If we apply your argument to the Knox case then it is only speculation and opinion she was acquitted due to lack of evidence, rather than it being a judicial truth.
You cannot have it all ways, especially when both rulings were handed down by the same Court operating within the same system.
I don’t care what you think about the legal fact that Amanda and Raffaele were exonerated for not having committed the crimes. I don’t accept the legal fiction that Guede had accomplices any more than I accept your legal fiction that Amanda and Raffaele were only acquitted for lack of evidence. I don’t care if you claim that the same court handed down both rulings. The court struck down the evidence and proclaimed that none more was possible. There was no probable cause to suspect them to begin with. So they are exonerated. As for Guede, there was no proof backing the ruling that he had accomplices.
Again you do not care, so why answer my comment by strictly adhering to what seems like a script prompted by an agenda?
I am trying to be thorough in my explanation of what I think. I have found that people will nitpick what I say to try to turn what I say into the exact opposite of what I mean. Of course you would consider my convictions to be agenda. You tried to establish a false dichotomy of saying I “cannot have it all ways” when in fact I can have everything the way I want it in my opinion. You do not have the right to make me choose between opposing what the judges said about Guede having accomplices and what you claim the judges said about there only not being enough evidence to convict. I choose to be emphatic then as Betty Slocombe would say, in this I am unanimous.
Betty Slocombe???
You’re British aren’t you? Haven’t you ever watched the character Betty Slocombe on “Are you being served?”
Cannot say that I have
I IMBd it , the programme is from like the 70s
Way before my time
Well, the reruns may still be running on this side of the pond.
Again you can choose what you want to believe, however you cannot change the fact that a Judicial truth was given out which stated Guede was not solely responsible for the murder
This fact is important because it is legally binding, which in my opinion means the Murder case is open as there are persons at large, responsible along with Guede for the crime.
That is an important point is it not?
Of course I choose what I accept as true. Of course I cannot change the fact that the Italian Judiciary made mistakes in my view. I still don’t have to accept that Guede was not solely responsible for his crimes against Meredith. If the Italian Judiciary wants to keep looking for these imaginary accomplices of Guede, that’s its business. I have not doubt that there never were any accomplices.
If you think that the murder case is still open because Guede was convicted with accomplices who have not been identified or convicted, the important point would be whether the police are still looking for those unknown accomplices? I don’t think the police are looking for anyone. The whole point of convicting Guede with accomplices was to create a legal fact that biased Amanda’s and Raffaele’s defense. Even now the guilters ask who besides Amanda and Raffaele could there be for accomplices as though it has to be they for want of any other. The better question since nobody is looking for anyone else is why was it declared that Guede had accomplices?
Did you take note that Rudy got a 36-hour pass to “feel the sunshine”?
Yes. It’s another reduction in an already reduced sentence. I do wonder if reform is the chief objective in his incarceration. If Guede really does come out as a rehabilitated citizen, then maybe something has been achieved. But if his rehabilitation is just for show, maybe he should have gotten a life sentence.
How was justice for Meredith supposed to have been served with Amanda and Raffaele being punished for crimes they didn’t do? Exonerating innocent people certainly focuses the justice on the real culprit who is Guede.
The fact is that Liz Houle in her article said: “Knox won a settlement from Italy on March 18, 2010, “Amanda Knox was awarded $55,000 by the Italian court . . . for the theft of her personal notebooks….”
examiner dot com/article/amanda-knox-the-15-million-dollar-woman-2
Before you complain, her diary was a notebook. “Theft” is certainly illegally confiscation.
Yeah, and bear in mind this is coming from Houle who is a classless hater who has been lying about Amanda for years. So you know if she claims Amanda actually won something then it must be true, though I doubt the dollar amount is accurate.
Well, Liz didn’t exaggerate the amount. She was trying to frame Amanda as a money hungry profiteer. Liz didn’t know that another guilter would try to say the confiscation was not a theft.
oint enterprise crime is when a secondary part aids, abets councels or procures for the principal offender making the secondary party equally as responsible for the crime as the principal offender.
There are the mixed samples of Amanda and Meredith, also a sample of Solecitto was found on a fag butt in the kitchen.
There is no trace of Guede in Filomena’s bedroom even though he stated he was in there.
My conclusion is the forensic investigation is either flawed, because it missed crucial evidence or we can just cherry pick to suit certain agendas or beliefs.
I believe in the small bathroom there were traces of Amanda’s blood on the sink or facet, I think Americans call them, from bleeding ears it is claimed.
Guede left shoe prints out of the murder room headed only to the front door, why would he take his shoes off and leave a footprint on a bath mat in the small bathroom, which is in the opposite direction of the front door, this seems unlikely
In my opinion it must belong to one of the others involved in the murder.
So my opinion that it was a joint enterprise murder means that the secondary party would not have to present in the room whilst the principal offender carried out the attack
Here was my reply to your post which was removed for reasons I can’t begin to understand…
So in your “joint enterprise” theory, what specifically did Amanda and Raffaele do and WHY did they do it?
There
are mixed samples because they shared the house. I am certain I could
find mixed samples of you and your husband in your bathroom (assuming
you are married).
Fag butt?? Raffaele was in the cottage on
several occasions so finding his DNA on a cigarette butt in the kitchen
is hardly surprising.
Attributing the break-in to Guede is
logical since there was significant evidence the break-in was real and
definitive proof Guede was in the house. Since I don’t believe Meredith
invited him in, attributing the break-in to Guede is a logical
conclusion even if there is no forensic evidence to prove he did it.
Are you saying I am cherry picking evidence? If so, why? What am I leaving out?
Faucet
or spigot, whichever works for you. And yes, per the investigation
there was one drop of Amanda’s blood there which Amanda attributed to
her ear piercings. There was blood found on her pillowcase as well, so
there is some evidence to support the claim.
My “theory” is as follows;
Guede
when to the bathroom to wash blood from his pants. He removes his shoe
and sock to rinse off the blood and then, while his foot is still wet
with some diluted blood, he puts his foot down on the mat before putting
his sock and shoe back on. He returns to Meredith’s room. As he
prepares to leave he steps in some blood, which results in the bloody
footprints heading towards the front door. The blood has worn off by the
time he gets to the door. He then realizes he needs the key to open the
door so he returns to Meredith’s room, gets her keys and leaves,
closing and locking the door as he goes.
Yes, it is only a theory
and no, I can not prove it. However, I would still point out that there
really is no other logical explanation for that print being there and
belonging to someone other than Guede. He admits he went to the small
bathroom, so he was there.
With all due respect, it appears to me
that you choose to ignore all of the evidence that points to Guede and
Guede alone, and find it sufficient to merely find a few elements that
you don’t think fit well with a Guede alone theory while never giving
any indication of why you’ve concluded Amanda and Raffaele were
involved.
I have never stated Amanda and Raff were involved
I have expressed my opinion this was a joint enterprise murder, which is a very tricky crime to prosecute successfully, however it is possible
However there is not enough evidence due to the flawed investigation to point the finger at anyone for certain, still nobody should be ruled out either.
This is to my mind, very much an open case, which I expect to be looked into at some stage in the future, because that really is the only option and a welcomed development by people on all sides of the debate
True, you did not specifically claimed they were guilty but you did say I had stated too many myths and mistruths for your liking and you made a point that innocence was not proven, both comments led me to conclude you believe they’re guilty. My apologies if I had that wrong.
I can’t disagree with much of what you’re saying, but I would suggest you’re making the case far more complex than it actually is. A good investigator should gather the evidence and go where it takes them. In this case the investigators went where their “intuition” took them – before any forensic evidence had been processed – and the investigation was bungled badly, but we still can only contemplate the case based on what evidence was presented. There simply never was anything that would suggest more than one attacker. Claims that there had to be more than one based on the injuries belie the fact that six out of seven experts who examined the wounds felt differently. From everything I know this case can be boiled down to; Guede broke into the cottage, was surprised by Meredith arriving home and for whatever reason reacted in violence, leading to Meredith’s death. I can’t think of a single thing that would contradict this simple theory which is also supported by all of the evidence.
Technically, the case isn’t open anymore since the ISC acquitted them. Realistically, the police never considered anyone else and there is no physical evidence that could drive a new investigation. The Kercher’s have my most sincere sympathies for the loss of Meredith but I feel they have been done a grave disservice being misled about Amanda and Raffaele being involved in the crime. Based on their comments over the years I think they have been all but convinced of this which means they will never have ‘closure’, whatever that is.
I wish the Kercher’s were willing to answer some questions because in my mind the case that was presented to them is incredibly easy to contradict and it really amazes me they’ve never questioned the most glaring of mistakes. But then, I certainly have no desire to cause them any more pain so as far as I’m concerned it will remain a mystery.
You are welcome to your opinion that others must have been involved in Guede’s crimes against Meredith, but I don’t share them. Notice that the footprint on the bathmat was only of the front part of the foot. That’s because there was no blood dripping down on the back part of the foot. Guede must have removed his shoe because of the blood that was on it, and he tried to clean it up. By the time he got to the small bathroom, the blood that was on the front of his pants had dripped down to his foot. Also, the second toe of the footprint is too close to the big toe to have been the footprint of Raffaele, and the footprint was certainly too big to have been Amanda’s. You can postulate that there was someone other than Guede in that cottage if you want, but it would be hard to prove with just one footprint that looks like Guede’s footprint.
The DNA outside of Meredith’s room doesn’t prove that Amanda or Raffaele had anything to do with the murder since Amanda lived there and Raffaele visited her there. That Amanda’s DNA was mixed with Meredith’s DNA doesn’t prove when they were mixed. So they cannot prove that Amanda was at the murder.
That does not make sense, Guede’s shoe prints clearly lead from Meredith’s room to the front door
The small bathroom is in the opposite direction and why would take his shoe off and leave a footprint which incidentally looks nothing like his foot
How do you know that the last time Guede left Meredith’s room was the only time he left it? You are welcome to your opinion that the footprint on the bathroom mat doesn’t look like Guede’s footprint, but I have explained why it looks like it to me. I don’t share your opinion. Raffaele’s second toe doesn’t come anywhere near his big toe.
The evidence of his shoe prints leaving Meredith’s room and headed towards the front door would suggest he made a sharp exit.
As for footprint made in a room which was in an opposite direction to the front door, it does not look like Guede’s and why would he take his shoes off?
Actually what I asked you is how you (or the prosecutor and judge) know that the last time Guede left Meredith’s room was the only time he left that room? Actually, we know he had to have left another time when he supposedly went for the towels to try to staunch Meredith’s bleeding. As for why he would have taken off his shoes and go to the small bathroom, he would have had blood on them that he wanted to wash off. He would have also have had blood on the front of his pants which dripped down to his right foot after he was standing on the bath mat. That’s why there is only the front part of his footprint on the bathmat. There was no blood on the back of his pants to drip down. Also, I question how it was determined from his shoe prints leaving the cottage that he was in too much of a hurry to close and lock Meredith’s door on the way out. I don’t accept it regardless of what the police, prosecutors, and judges say. It was just an opinion even if they found experts to say it.
How do you know Guede was in the small bathroom
When there is zero evidence of him ever being in that particular room?
I saw Guide’s footprint on the Bathgate. Also, where else would he get the towels he claimed to have used trying to staunch Meredith’s bleeding?
Admit there is no physical evidence of Guede in the small bathroom
Also towels could have come from anywhere in the villa inc other b
I don’t admit that the footprint on the bathroom mat is not Guede’s. You can think what you wish about it, but I don’t have to agree with you. Of course wherever the towels came from, it proves that Guede came out of Meredith’s room more than just when he left the cottage. I do think the towels came from the small bathroom instead of the other bathroom. The small bathroom was right next to Meredith’s room. Why would Guede go running to the other side of the house when there was a bathroom right next to him?
There is little doubt the towels came from Meredith’s and Amanda’s bathroom.
Firstly, Guede TESTIFIED that he took them from there to Meredith’s room.
Secondly, Amanda was accustomed to there being a stack of fresh towels – the next morning she failed to notice that they were gone until she actually got out of the shower.
At one point in interrogation, Guede said he got towels’s from ‘ her’ bathroom.
Zero evidence?
Are you saying that Guede just gratuitously made up his story about going to that bathroom TWICE to fetch towels (which he said was in order to “help” Meredith by mopping up her blood)?
There is zero recorded physical evidence he was in the small bathroom .
Are you saying Guede tells the truth and his word is to be trusted?
That is some pretty tortured logic.
So Guede never went to the bathroom and took the towels into Meredith’s bedroom where they were then found soaked in her blood?
This is what you actually believe, despite the FACT that Guede SAID that’s what happened?
OK, fill me in with the rest of your …. narrative.
WHY did he make up this story?
Hey who is removing my comments and is there any particular reason why?
They are valid points made in a respectful way as far as I am concerned
I am not sure how and nobody has ever been able to explain to me, how they can happily conclude that a ruling made by a Court based on an investigation that they themselves have called corrupt and flawed is the right call in such a serious matter.
Happily conclude is an odd way of putting that. I would say it’s more along the lines of careful evaluation of the evidence, application of logic, common sense and reason and coming to a conclusion.
With Guede, you have someone who should not have been in the cottage that night but was. He was in Meredith’s room as she lay bleeding to death. He left definitive proof of that by way of a palm print and shoe prints, neither of which can be the result of contamination. The number of DNA traces, the location of them and the quantity of DNA makes the likelihood of contamination infinitely less likely than the ‘bra clasp’ and ‘knife blade’ samples. But regardless, I would have no issue tossing out all DNA evidence against Guede except for the trace found inside Meredith. That trace was detected after the body was removed from the crime scene and the forensic pathologist did not have any of Guede’s DNA around that could have caused contamination. And since I don’t believe Meredith would have had consensual sexual contact with Guede, I think this tends to prove Guede forced himself on Meredith. Finally, Guede fled the country and that is an action usually taken by those who are guilty of a crime.
Conversely, there isn’t a single element of evidence that was ever produced that even remotely proved Amanda or Raffaele were involved in the crime. I won’t get into all that was wrong with the case unless there are specific things you wish to discuss. But I would say one thing no pro-guilt commentator has ever been able to answer is WHY. Let me put it this way…
Despite efforts to fabricate friction between Amanda and Meredith, the evidence and testimony shows a very normal relationship. Yes, Meredith had some issues with some of Amanda’s habits but that is almost always the case with roommates. And if anything that could have explained Meredith killing Amanda, but it makes no sense the other way around. They liked each other, they had fun together and there was nothing in their relationship that could have led to this crime.
Amanda and Raffaele were alone at his place. They had been dating for only a week. Several people testified they were completely infatuated with each other. They both had obligations that evening that would have kept them apart but by 20:40 they realized they were both free for the evening. When Popovic came by to let Raffaele know she didn’t need a ride she found Amanda there and in a normal, friendly frame of mind. Computer evidence shows activity at 21:10 and against at 21:26. Neither Amanda or Raffaele had ever exhibited any criminal or violent behavior. The desperation of the pro-guilt community to alter this perception shows in their making a major issue over a simple citation for a noisy party and Raffaele collecting Manga comic books (which, btw, are extremely popular, especially in Asian cultures). There is simply no way to reason that given these circumstances, that Amanda and Raffaele would have left the apartment, hooked up with Guede in some way, and not only allowed but participated in the sexual assault and murder of Meredith. This is why the issue of motive always comes up — because people don’t just suddenly take a 180 in life and murder a friend for no reason. Even in cases where it appears this happened, there is always an underlying cause. And to assume that TWO people did this, especially since Raffaele really didn’t know Meredith – or Amanda, for that matter – except for a couple of pleasant exchanges in passing, is simply not logical.
In my opinion THIS is why people can make the conclusion they have despite a seriously flawed investigation.
You are confusing legal with right. The arrest was not right. It was based on an abusive interrogation and trumped up evidence with absolutely no probable cause. The Italian Judiciary went through the legal procedure for detaining Amanda, but it did not investigate in good faith.
As you are asking me to justify my opinion time and time again in regard to the multiple attackers theory.
I have learnt nothing productive can be achieved from head on confrontation especially when this case is involved.
So I assume you know the case, and you are aware of the reasons why the Italian Supreme Court stated Guede did not act on his own.
So instead of asking me for my theory how about lets make this more interesting as it obvious you are keen to put the innocence side across in regard to this matter
So why don’t you counter argue the ISC Judicial truth pertaining to the multiple assailants point by point
This way I can be emotionally detached from the discussion slightly.
Otherwise I fear due to previous experience the debate will go South rather quickly.
I look forward to you addressing the points made by the ISC in the Guede case Final Motivation Report and I hope this a satisfactory Isolution and a challenge you will accept
Response is below, but it is only satisfactory if you respond in kind with your reasoning.
Most beautiful place hd wallpapers and pictures packages download visit
http://www.funny220.com/image_category.php?wallpaper-category=Beautiful-places
Funny these profiles get wheeled out to oppose any person who questions the narrative
Trick is not to reply to them directly otherwise You are in for a torrid time with some rather delusional but lovely people..
If you want a honest debate not going to happen in regard to this case
By the way They do not know they I fact know nothing
You really should NOT use that word Sophie. Delusional. Have you a mirror handy?
Please cite one court record which states the bra clasp was tested using the LCN technique rather than the SMG+ standard test.
Ta
You are avoiding the question. I didn’t say they followed LCN protocol, now did I. I said the quantity of Raffaele’s DNA qualifies as LCN (i.e., under 200 pg). Again, answer these three basic questions;
1. What was the quantity of DNA in sample 165B?
2. What was the ratio of Meredith’s DNA to Raffaele’s? Meredith was the major contributor, Raffaele (and at least two other males) were minor contributors.
3. What is the internationally accepted quantity of DNA that is considered LCN?
Three very basic questions. You claim to understand the science and have the facts of the case, so these should be a snap for you to answer. So why do you keep avoiding them?
Talk about backtracking. Admit you were wrong if your ego will allow you. Oh my days this is just so funny
Your problem, Sofie, is you don’t understand what LCN is. I quote here from one of many web sites that discuss LCN profiling;
“Samples containing <100–200 pg of total DNA
available for amplification fall into the range generally considered to
be LCN DNA by most practitioners. Consequently, these samples may undergo LCN
DNA-testing procedures developed to increase assay sensitivity; commonly
this includes increased PCR cycles (e.g., 28 cycles increased to 31 or
34 cycles)…"
If you were able to answer the three questions I asked you would have confirmed the point I've been making all along – that is, the DNA attributed to Raffaele was LCN because of the small amount quantified in the sample. That the PCR amplification cycles were not increased to 31 or more, as would be normal for an LCN sample, is irrelevant.
By not answering the questions you prove you do not know the facts of the case. That you continue to misunderstand what LCN profiling actually means indicates you are either incapable or unwilling to learn from your mistakes. There is not backtracking here. Raffaele's sample was sufficiently small to qualify as LCN.
I see you cannot
Sofie, are you interested in the facts of the case and what the truth is or do you just want to continue to bark up the wrong tree? Let’s me lay this out for you…
LCN Profiling is a process used when a DNA sample is too small for standard amplification and analysis. A DNA sample is considered to be LCN when it is <100-200 pg. The quantity of DNA in sample 165B and the percentage of that sample belonging to Raffaele confirms Raffaele's DNA is within LCN range. This means it's a really small amount of DNA.
How sample 165B was tested is irrelevant.
Take your own advice and stop dumping trash here.
So you can’t answer the questions, as expected. You’re PMF/TJMK trained, which means you learned myth, speculation and lies and when asked to produce evidence you crumble. It’s OK.. anyone reading here will understand you were asked legitimate questions which proves the point and you couldn’t respond. Says a lot about you and the… ahem… depth of your knowledge.
Dysgwch y ffeithiau cyn embaras eich hun yn gyhoeddus
Thank you for your efforts. Most times guilters are stupid and easily ‘killed’. But sometimes they are intelligent and just hellbent on bullying as Sofie WS. Again, thanx!
I’m not sure I’d call Sofie a bully. She’s been duped into believing one thing and refuses to address any facts that prove otherwise. The three questions I have repeatedly asked her should be easy for someone who has followed the case to answer yet she avoids them. The childish commentary is just part of the response from guilters when they can’t respond with facts or reason.
Thanks Gorros
I was just considering the normal consequences of such grave accusations as Sofie’s. In Sweden, where I live, the number of female suicides during 2015 because of cyber-bullying were higher than ever. But you know her better than I am doing.
Haha PMF/TJMK trained that is brilliant and displays your paranoia perfectly
You are convinced RS profile on the bra clasp evidence was discovered using the LCN method of DNA testing when if you look at any Court record it tells you it was not
Why don’t you produce a Court record that corroborates you statement or you could just accept you made a mistake and realise your knowledge is not perfect in regard to this case.
You believe a narrative and adhere to an agenda which is to defend at all costs even if that means bending the truth.I am certain anyone with any concept of this case would be able to see the through your smoke and mirrors routine and suss out your only purpose in participating in discussion boards like this is to silence any dissenting opinion by any and all means possible.
Also google translate is not all that good and your attempt at Welsh is poor to say the least.
The aspect of how the DNA testing was done is interesting, of course. Another interesting thing to think of is how G. Mignini felt after 45 days of murder investigation with a murder scene full of finger prints, hand prints, foot prints, sperm stains and DNA of R. Guedé all over the place and not a single trace of A. Knox or R. Sollecito? In view of Mignini’s since a long time established methods I don’t think it is astonishing that ‘evidence’ of Sollecito’s presence appeared the next day, the 46’th. And consequently, that the item, the bra clasp, was so ‘carelessly’ stored as to destroy every possibility to retesting. If you have Satan as an opponent ‘satanic’ counter methods perhaps are appropriate?
He judoed the lack of evidence as evidence of a clean up.
Yes, and that is a new way to get evidence in criminal cases. First you decide, using the Giobbi method, who is guilty of the heinous crime. Then you present to the court as strong evidence the complete lack of evidence. No need for expensive investigations and laboratories! Brilliant!
Gorros, what you wrote would be absolutely hysterical if it weren’t for the fact that this is exactly what happened and it cost two innocent people four years of their lives.
Yes, and only the gifted Italians have the brainpower to invent such a genial method of crime solving! Let us assume that somebody want to murder a…. a prosecutor, let us say that’s a probable wish of somebody, and the murderer is apprehended,
“But I did not only fill the murder site with my blood and the murder weapon and finger- and footprints, I also left a video where you can see and hear the whole of the f****g murder”, the apprehended murderer cries. “Is that true?” the investigator answers, “well, in that case we must put you on the street.”
“Or at least cut away half of the time”, he says, finally.
She’s guilty. She’s guilty and has simply got away with it. It happens. Knox and co. lied from the outset. Knox is lying still. The nonsense below has nothing to do with a fair and impartial review of what we know. The American press has led its citizens by the nose once again, as the press tends to in all countries. This has ceased to be about facts and is is now about partisanship, about America versus the world. It’s worth remembering that legal evidence is seldom overwhelming, and will always prove susceptible to tendentious re-interpretation by mischief-makers more interested in taking sides than finding out what happened. It is neither here nor there if a particular claim fails to demonstrate a ‘necessary’ [unassailable] truth. Argument in law is about a balance of probability. It can be about nothing else where the facts are known only to the actual participants. In spite of this we have a mountain of lies, contradictions and slandering of third parties [including the deliberately misunderstood Italian justice system] – to say nothing of the accused’s initially bizarre behaviour and continued refusal to answer pertinent questions – which if language and common sense is to mean anything at all point to only one reasonable conclusion. What tells us more about this case is the triumphalism, the unalloyed gloating on display on these boards which would shame any civilised society. As to the vicious, degenerate swill who posted pictures of Ms. Kerscher, she and the object of her admiration surely deserve each other. Suitable reward would be a short rope and a long drop for them both.
Well, aside from the fact that there is no evidence of their involvement in the crime; aside from the fact there is no motive for them to have committed such a crime; aside from the fact that there is overwhelming evidence of Guede committing the crime…. aside from all this, you might have a point.
It’s disingenuous at best to blame the American media while ignoring the lies, distortions and misinformation distributed by the media, including American media, against Amanda and Raffaele, almost from day one.
This case is all about the facts, both real and imaginary. Luminol hits that are proven to not be made from blood or contain Meredith’s DNA is very relevant. A knife that is not compatible with the wounds and which does not have any traces of blood or Meredith’s DNA is very relevant. Witnesses that come forward months later and only at the behest of a reporter, and whose testimony is entirely contradictory is very relevant.
I’m sorry you were duped by a media that convicted Amanda and Raffaele on lies and exploitation, and you are incapable now of understanding that, but at least two courts in Italy, including the one that actually counts, were able to see past that and evaluate the case based on the facts. Perhaps with time you will too. If not… oh well.
It took a lot of words for you to say nothing enlightening.
That is typical for the PGP… much nonsense, but when forced into a corner where they need to deal with a fact head-on, they disappear (e.g., still waiting on Sofie to admit the DNA attributed to Raffaele was LCN. I’ve asked three simple questions that are easily answered and which proves the point but she’ll bob, weave and then disappear rather than answer).
@brainbitten…Yes, something has indeed bitten off your brain, the whole of it. Please continue to amuse me…