A strong case?

A strong case?

Postby welshman » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:39 pm

As six years have passed since the murder of Meredith, I feel long standing myths about this case needs to be destroyed. One myth which I feel needs to be destroyed in depth is the notion the prosecution had a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele and a mountain of solid evidence which is claimed by the haters. My apologies if this appears a long post but I feel this myth needs a comprehensive demolition. I wrote a post on this subject just before the supreme court decision. This is a revised version with additional points. Please feel free to add any further points to the below which attacks the notion the prosecution had a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele.

* The prosecution told numerous lies. If the prosecution had so much solid evidence, why did the prosecution have to resort to lying? The lies told by the prosecution fell into five categories.

1) Lying about evidence which did not exist. The prosecution lied about false evidence. A false story was leaked to the media to say bleach receipts were purchased. Mignini lied in court about evidence of a clean up in Raffaele's apartment. If the prosecution had so much solid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele why did the prosecution have to lie about non existent evidence?

2) Distoring the evidence. There were several occasions when the prosecution distorted the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele to support their arguments. To support the notion Raffaele called the police after the arrival of the postal police, the police had to lie about the time of arrival. To support the idea Amanda called her mother at noon before anything had happened, prosecutor Comodi had to lie about the time Amanda made her call. If the case against Amand and Raffaele was so strong, why did the prosecution have to distort the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele rather than present the evidence truthfully?

3) Lying for the purpose of character assassination. Amanda was lied to she had HIV and her list of sexual partners was leaked to the media to create the idea Amanda was a sex maniac. This was used to attack Amanda's character. Why did the prosecution have to resort to this tactic if they had solid evidence against her.

4) Lying to cover up sloppy evidence handling. Stefanoni lied she changed gloves which was disproven on video. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why did the prosecution have to lie to cover up sloppy evidence handling.

5) Omitting evidence. Stefanoni lied about the negative TMB results and additional male profiles on the bra clasp. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why did the prosecution have to lie to cover things up.

The haters use the internet the comments sections of articles and Amazon reviews to spread lies and misinformation. These are examples of the lies told by the haters :-

Heiress Amazon review WTBH - "For starters was found cleaning the place with bleach when the police arrived". Truth: Amanda was not caught cleaning when the police arrived.

Bejamin Fletcher "BRFC are back" Amazon review WTBH - "They've found Meredith's blood on a knife in his apartment". Truth: There was no blood on Meredith's knife.

Christina comments page 7 Amazon review WTBH - "whose is the female fooprint who applied female sized bruises on MK's neck in strangulation" Truth: There were no female footprints in Meredith's room or female thumbprints on Meredith's neck.

JF Rodrigue Amazon review WTBH - " She was doing cartwheels in the police station." Truth: It has been proved Amanda did not do cartwheels.

Wendy Murphy in her blog - "pro Amanda forces forget to note the knife was found hidden in a shoebox far back inside a coset at Sollecitito's apartment and that the knife had been scrubbed with bleach." Truth:The knife was found in Raffaele's kitchen drawer and the knife had not been cleaned with bleach.

The above are only a small sample of the lies spread by the haters on the internet. If there was so much solid evidence against Amand and Raffaele, why do the haters have to tell so many lies when arguing their case? Why do they haters have to resort to making things up? The fact the haters have to resort to lying is an indication there was lack of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele.

* The prosecution suppressed evidence. The police destroyed several computers, refused to hand over EDFs on the knife tests, refused to hand over CCTV which covered the route between the cottage and Raffaele's apartment and refused to hand over tapes of the interrogations. Why did the prosecution have to suppress evidence if they had a strong case?

* This is the forensic evidence which was used against Amanda and Raffaele :-

A knife with the following characteristics :-

Not matching the wounds
Not matching a bloody imprint on the bed
It had had no blood or biological matter which would make it impossible for DNA to stay on the knife
The discovery of the knife was highly suspect. The police picked a knife at random without collecting any other knives and this knife just happened to be the knife use in the murder.
There was no DNA on the knife
How is the use of the knife explained if the murder was not premeditated? If Amanda and Raffaele had killed Meredith in the heat of the moment, how was a knife from Raffaele's flat used in the murder? Judge Massei said Amanda carried the knife in her handbag for which there was no evidence to support. There were no cuts in her bag. No one had seen Amanda take the knife in and out of her bag. No witness has said Amanda mentioned the knife.
In the last trial prosecutor Crini lied saying that the knife matched the bloody imprint on the bed. A claim the prosecution had not made before.
In an interview Mignini gave a revised scenario of how the murder happened. He said Amanda directed the murder from the corridor when the prosecution previously claimed Amanda killed Meredith in the room. If this scenario was true, who stabbed Meredith with the knife?

A bra clasp with the following characteristics

Not collected for six weeks.
The crime scene had been trashed beforhand.
There were other male profiles which supported contamination.
The defense argued the DNA profile was not unique to Raffaele.

Footprints with the following characeristics

None of the footprints were in the room where the murder happened.
They were all negative with TMB.
Two of the prints in the corridor were nothing but blobs which would make it impossible to determine who the prints belonging to.
None of the prints in the corridor and Amanda's room had Meredith's DNA.
The prints in Filomen'a room were shapeless stains which again would make it impossible to determine who the prints belonged to.
Only the stains in Meredith's room had her DNA.

Amanda's DNA being found in her bathroom.

The forensic evidence used against Amanda and Raffaele was extremely dubious and lacked credibility. Basic logic and common sense dicates if a knife is used to stab someone it must match the wounds and a knife which does not match the wounds can not be the murder weapon. It was perfectly normal for Amanda's DNA to be found in her bathroom. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why is it that dubious forensic evidence was the only forensic evidence they could find against Amanda and Raffaele? The prosecution had a year to prepare their case. If the case against Amand and Raffaele was so strong why was it that with all the time available to prepare their case a knife which did not match the wounds was the best evidence the prosecution could find?

The circumstances of how the bra clasp was collected are very suspect which has lead to speculation the bra clasp was planted. Why would the prosecution have to resort to manufacturing evidence if they had a mountain of solid evidence?

If the prosecution had a strong case and the forensic evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was valid, why did the prosecution have to suppress evidence and tell so many lies with regards to the forensic evidence which is detailed on murderofmeredithkercher.com

* When Amanda and Raffaele were interrogated, they were denied access to lawyers, they were not officially told they were suspects and the interrogations were not taped. Why did the police have to resort to such dubious and underhand tactics if they had a strong case? Why did the police have to rely on coerced confessions if they had a strong case? Coerced confessions are false evidence. Why use false evidence if the police had a mountain of genuine solid evidence? If the police had built up a mountain of evidence Amanda and Raffaele were involved in Meredith's murder, why were they not presented with this evidence during the interrogations?

* If there was so much solid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why is that when the haters argue the case for guilt, they rely heavily on things which happened outside the murder and are not directly connected to the murder rather than direct evidence of involvement in Meredith's murder? These include Raffaele having a knife collection, Amanda's ticket for noise violation, Raffaele reading Manga comics. Why not concentrate on direct evidence of involvement in Meredith's murder rather than things events outisde the murder?

The haters often lie about things which happened outside the murder. For instance, murderofmeredithkercher.com showed the haters have lied about a rape prank Amanda carried out by Amanda and Raffaele stabbing someone with a pair of scissors If there was so much solid evidence why do the haters have to lie about events which happened outside the murders to attack the characters of Amanda and Raffaele?

* If there was so much solid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why have Amanda and Raffaele received so much support? Would people not look foolish if they argued people were innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence? It is important to bear in mind Amanda and Raffaele's supporters have to endure vicious attacks from the nutjobs on the hate sites.

* During the Hellman trial the prosecution showed a picture of Meredith's body which did not indicated who killed Meredith and in no way can be described as evidence. Why did the prosecution have to resort to this tactic if they had so much solid evidence?

* If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the prosecution have to constantly keep changing motives and scenarios? Why is that none of the motives suggested by the prosecution stand up to scrutiny? For instance, one motive was that Amanda forced Meredith to take part in a sex game. Was it credible that a woman who had showen no previous interest in group sex would force someone to take part in group sex and kill her when she refused to take part?

* Nenci's motivation report was riddled with falsehoods. Why did Judge Nenci have to report to writing falsehoods in his motivation if there was so much solid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele?

* The prosecution opposed carrying out tests :-

They opposed opening the knife to see if there was blood between the handle and blade.
They opposed carrying out tests to see which direction the glass was broken.
They did not carry out tests to see around Filomena's windows to support the staged break in theory.

If the prosecution had a strong case, why were they unwilling to carry out tests to test their theories?

* A video was released showing a CCTV of a woman who clearly was not Amanda and was walking away from the cottage. Why would the prosecution have to resort to this tactic if they had a strong case?
welshman
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:49 am

Re: A strong case?

Postby Tablebeforme » Sat Jun 21, 2014 5:12 pm

I think "a strong case" is a catch phrase used to hook the uncommitted and easily influenced. It's like a sign in a grocery store that says "Great Buy!" or "Special!" but further investigation reveals it's actually the regular price. It plants a preconceived notion in your head, intentionally provoking confirmation bias.
Tablebeforme
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat May 24, 2014 4:20 pm

Re: A strong case?

Postby Sarah » Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:29 pm

Welshman,

A very excellent post. This really captures the fabricated case against them.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: A strong case?

Postby Niteangel » Sun Jun 22, 2014 1:42 am

Great post welshman!
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
Niteangel
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:15 pm

Re: A strong case?

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:31 am

Great post!
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: A strong case?

Postby KayPea » Sun Jun 22, 2014 10:39 am

Thanks to you and others, Welshman, there is now a fabulous body of work available to the public. This synopsis is perfect to show newcomers. May we share it please?

This needs a page of its own on MoMK.
“If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it.”-- Marcus Aurelius
User avatar
KayPea
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:40 pm
Location: Seattle WA

Re: A strong case?

Postby welshman » Sun Jun 22, 2014 11:23 am

KayPea wrote:Thanks to you and others, Welshman, there is now a fabulous body of work available to the public. This synopsis is perfect to show newcomers. May we share it please?

This needs a page of its own on MoMK.


I am planning to put it on Murderofmeredithkercher.com. I would like this thread to go out.
welshman
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:49 am

Re: A strong case?

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Jun 22, 2014 11:30 am

Sarah wrote:Welshman,

A very excellent post. This really captures the fabricated case against them.

Yes, great post!
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: A strong case?

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Jun 22, 2014 11:33 am

Welshman.....

That was a good touch to include a sample of comments from places like Amazon, comments from guiters which show a staggering ignorance of the most basic "facts" of this case.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: A strong case?

Postby welshman » Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:43 pm

Another point -

* On Amazon reviews the haters often write long winded reviews which consist of nothing more than attacks on Amanda's character. If there was a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, why do the haters have to resort to character assassination rsther than let the evidence speak for itself?
welshman
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:49 am

Re: A strong case?

Postby LarryK » Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:31 am

Great summary! You can add the repeated refusal to test the semen stain. If it was Rudy's DNA it would have been compelling since he never should have been in the flat. If it belonged to Giacomo Silenzi (Meredith's boyfriend) it would have merely been inconclusive, no harm done.
The brain is not configured in a way that makes obedience through logical, language-based propositions possible during distress and suffering. -- James Wilder, "Neurotheology and the Life Model"
LarryK
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: A strong case?

Postby welshman » Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:32 am

Another point -

* If there was a mountain of solid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why is that books, documentaries and websites which argue the case for guilt such as the lifetime movie, John Kercher's book Meredith, themurderofmeredithkercher.com and the bbc documentary Is Amanda Knox guilty have to resort to using falsehoods?
welshman
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:49 am

Re: A strong case?

Postby welshman » Fri Jul 04, 2014 5:15 pm

Do you think my post would be accepted on tjmk/pmf sites.
welshman
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:49 am

Re: A strong case?

Postby Mafiabuster » Sat Jul 05, 2014 5:13 am

welshman wrote:Do you think my post would be accepted on tjmk/pmf sites.


Who cares, they are a bunch of low-life rats. Amanda's fate doesn't depend on them. It depends on the USA government. They won't let her rot in an Italian prison. Not when they see what a lovely person she is, and that she couldn't have done the crime.
Mafiabuster
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:24 pm

Re: A strong case?

Postby pmop57 » Sat Jul 05, 2014 6:04 am

Welshman,
Concerning the interrogation, when the Police started the interrogation the night of the 5th to 7th Nov. they had no evidence, no hard evidence, they simply had nothing but "assumptions" mainly based on their narrow minded perceptions and interpretation of behavioural issiues, plus the wrongful interpretation of the broken window without any serious examination or investigation of the item, plus the interception of a phonecall of RS with his father (all mentioned in the witness statements of Giobbi in court).
As they had until that moment only been focussing on their theory that MK knew her killer, this assumption linked to their interpretation of the behavioural observations made AK and RS their favourable target.
The intrrogation was "standard" police work out of the lesson book.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: A strong case?

Postby welshman » Sat Jul 05, 2014 1:43 pm

I have put my post on murderofmeredithkercher.com under pro guilt myths with additional points.
welshman
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:49 am

Re: A strong case?

Postby McGirr » Sat Jul 05, 2014 2:28 pm

welshman wrote:I have put my post on murderofmeredithkercher.com under pro guilt myths with additional points.


I forgot to say, Great Post ;)
fuhgeddaboudit
User avatar
McGirr
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 6:11 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: A strong case?

Postby welshman » Sat Jul 05, 2014 4:07 pm

In future if any haters on Amazon or the comments sections of articles boast about overwhelming evidence, they might get a rude awakening.
welshman
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:49 am

Re: A strong case?

Postby welshman » Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:05 am

I removed the strong case from the murderofmeredithkercher wiki was it was advised the tone was not suitable for the wiki. Here are the additional points I made :-

* If the prosecution had a strong case, why were witnesses for the prosecution evasive in court and unable to answer questions? For instance, this is the testimony of Stefanoni from May 2009 when she could not tell how much DNA was on the clasp :-
QUESTION – The quantification of the trace on the clasp. RESPONSE – Utilizing the Applied Biosystems Quantifiler kit. QUESTION – And what is the quantity, exactly? RESPONSE – I’m sorry, I don’t understand, the quantity of what? Of the entire DNA sample? QUESTION – Yes, yes. RESPONSE – At the moment I don’t have it but, let’s say, it’s a suitable quantity to have it amplified, that’s why it was amplified. QUESTION – Yes, you know, the two of us have already seen in the preliminary hearing, that one of the things that we point out is the quantity of the trace. I was interested in his this trace was quantified. RESPONSE – With the appropriate software for the quantification that is practically included with the instrument, in the 7700 that we use. OMANDA – Yes, what I’m asking you is this: granted that we are talking here, you said it already, with a trace on the hooks, is that correct? RESPONSE – Yes. QUESTION – Because there is no DNA that you have attributed to Sollecito on the small piece of cloth, correct? RESPONSE – Correct. QUESTION – Nor on the bra. RESPONSE – Correct. QUESTION – So given that we are therefore talking about DNA that is only on the hooks I wanted to know what the quantity was. RESPONSE – I cannot tell you, numerically I don’t know, certainly is was… since the product of amplification is completely, let’s say a result absolutely of good quality. I suppose that at least in the amplification test tube there was at a nanogram of DNA in total. QUESTION – However, you understand well that this is an assumption of yours. I wanted to know if you were able to give me the documentation of this. RESPONSE – Ah, the documentation of that quantification, yes, but not now however. Unfortunately, that is, numerically the number that came out of the analyzing software,I don’t have it now. QUESTION – Are you able, nevertheless, to produce the quantity? RESPONSE – Yes, the quantity, yes. QUESTION – So you will be able to tell us how much of a trace there was? RESPONSE – How much total DNA there was, because there was a mix, I don’t distinguish DNA of the victim quantitatively from the DNA of Sollecito, I can distinguish it… rather, I can make a quantitative relationship between the two DNA only looking at the electropherogram. Therefore, looking at the electropherogram I estimated it to be a 1 to 6 ratio. That is, the victim’s DNA is 6 times more than the DNA of Sollecito, however… QUESTION – Let’s start by saying this, therefore in the area of the trace found on the hook we have a quantity of DNA attributable to the victim, which is 6 times more than that of Sollecito? RESPONSE – Yes. QUESTION – The quantity, however, the number you cannot tell me? RESPONSE –

* If there was a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, why does the pro guilt community have to resort to making vicious personal attacks on Amanda and Raffaele's supporters rather than deal with their arguments in a rational manner? If the prosecution had a strong case, the pro guilt community should have no difficulty answering the arguments of Amanda and Raffaele's supporters.

* There are numerous flaws with the the testimony of Curalto and Nara which are detailed on this website. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did they have to rely on such dubious testimony? If Curalto was telling the truth, he gives Amanda and Raffaele an alibi. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did they have to resort to using a witness whose testimony went against the prosecution?

* It has commented the testimony of Meredith's friends in the Massei trial was very similar which indicated they had been coached by the prosecution. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to influencing witness testimony?
welshman
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:49 am

Re: A strong case?

Postby welshman » Wed Aug 27, 2014 10:57 am

I have linked my thread to a post on Amandas blog. I have challenged the haters to answers the points in my thread. The silence from the haters has been deafening. I wonder why the haters have not taken up my challenge.
welshman
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:49 am


Return to Injustice in Perugia Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests