6,429 comments posted · 282 followers · following 0
Let's see... I am assuming David Balding the statistician - who uses DNA in population dynamics/migration studies and tracing family history, NOT in criminal forensics - is saying that the bra hook that was kicked around the murder scene for 47 days as it very obviously changed from pristine white to dingy gray - and when tested showed evidence of at least THREE different male contributors - Balding said it did not appear contaminated??? Identify the other two male contributors, and then we will talk about "contamination".
In the violence of that desperate fight-for-life, anyone involved or even present would have incurred injury and also left behind DNA. Meredith did; Rudy did; Amanda left NONE - ergo she was not there. Rudy had extensive injury; Raffaele showed no injuries at all and neither did Amanda - ergo they were NOT THERE during the murder. It is strongly disputed that the DNA on the bra hook even IS Raffaele's, but even if it is, the lack of any other traces and the lack of any injuries still excludes Raffaele from the scene at the time of the murder.
As for the lack of DNA in Knox's own room, how do you expect to find any if you do not even look? Stefanoni's own work records document that no DNA collection was done in Knox's bedroom. The same argument applies to fingerprints: the technician's records and his testimony show he only looked for fingerprints in the kitchen (found Knox's) and five places in Filomena's room not including the window or the broken glass. Extremely unprofessional.
Guede was an accomplished second-story burglar - why would he need any other to let him in when he had a broken and unlocked window?
How is it that you are commenting on this matter and you do not know long ago that the "pink bathroom" was ONLY the result of police spraying the room with a regent that turns pink on contact with any form of protein including as found in soap residues that condense onto wall surfaces in shower rooms? Earlier police photos of the bathroom show it as pristine white except for a pinhead drop of Knox's blood on the basin faucet and a drop of Meredith's blood in the bidet - and Rudy's very dilute footprint on the bath rug. Well, and a blood drip on the back side of the door near the hinge that was only visible when the door was closed if you were actually looking right there.
"the police report that she has body odour as if she has just had sex" - seriously, are these human police officers, or are they sex-sniffing dogs??? Can YOU tell just by sniffing someone that they have "had sex"? Get real!
Your "iceberg" just melted, and it turned out to be a piece of crushed ice.
I read originally that Donnino was a bilingual police officer. I have since read that she had perhaps been a police officer previously but decided to become a full-time interpreter instead. Honestly I do not know which if either is true at his point. But that is really NOT THE POINT.
Donnino was clearly very intimately involved in the case alongside police - and was very familiar with police - and she was NOT an independent and unbiased witness. She was being paid by police and she clearly saw it her duty to "help" the police (which was incidentally what Amanda Knox intended, also.) And Donnino's mental processes were clearly "contaminated" by many privileged details about the police investigation, so she was not impartial or unbiased.
But MUCH more importantly, Donnino wrote TWO so-called "spontaneous declarations" in Knox's name, and did not provide with them the English translations of their content for Knox to read, understand and assent to. Instead, it seems quite clear that she "explainified" (that is George W. Bush Texas "Terminogragy") the documents to Knox, thus accounting for the quite clear pencil underlining. Without the matching translations or transcripts in English we have no proof whatsoever that Knox even knew what it was that she was signing. Therefore, both documents qualify as forgeries (because they were written by another "in the name of Knox" and without her informed consent) or fraud (in the quite likely event that they were crafted deceptively.)
And that is really all that needs be said.
As far as Knox's "various lies", except for these two documents written by someone else, I have not encountered any or certainly any of any actual consequence or unexplained by translational errors (locked door, etc.) Knox recorded a description of events - in direct violation of police instructions - in her email home to numerous recipients on 4 Nov. Except for these two documents which I call forgeries, all of her descriptions of events ever since have matched - in all issues of any consequence - the description she emailed home on that day.
As far as minor and inconsequential variances of her reports, I would note that there is a principle in law that whenever testimony is taken from multiple witnesses (or from the same witness on several occasions) that testimony should agree on all important points, but should reflect some variance in at least a few inconsequential matters. This then acts as an assurance that the testimony is not rote-memorized or the product of collusion, and that it actually reflects the independent memories of the witness. Thus Knox's testimony continues to agree with both itself and with that of Raffaele Sollecito on all consequential points - yet does in fact demonstrate authenticity by the slight variances between the two or over time in areas not at all of consequence to the Truth of this case. Neither is lying.
As it happens, my great-great-grandfather was once in a position rather like that of Knox. A very well-read man from County Cork, he had certain political views, and because of those views, certain authorities desired to convey upon him the "Order Of the Hemp Collar". My ancestor declined the honor and the dignity, fled through Belfast to Scotland, changing his name en-route, and then like Knox, promptly booked passage to America. This seems to have worked, inasmuch as I am here. Thankfully, those troubles now seem to be past - but we must diligently remember past injustices so as to avoid committing new ones. It is time that Amanda's and Raffaele's troubles also should be long past - since they are provably innocent of the murder of Meredith Kercher.
"Anna Donnino is an interpreter and translator with 22 years experience. She was involved with the investigation FROM THE BEGINNING acting as a interpreter for Meredith's British friends. She also translated documents and was used to interpret and translate INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATIONS." [emphasis added]
Now we know from the record that Amanda's intercepted phone calls were being translated and reviewed by investigators prior to Knox's "interview" - and if McCall is correct, we know who was doing this translation - as well as translating for all the British girls. Just ONE person: Anna Donnino.
Anna Donnino was not doing all this for free: she was being paid. Whether being paid as a police employee or as a contractor, it remains that Police were paying her and that she had a fiduciary obligation and financial incentive to meet their expectations. It is also very clear that she was extremely familiar with the police officers, with police procedures, and with the standard-form "spontaneous declaration". Donnino was NOT an unbiased interpreter.
Moreover, it is clear that Donnino had so much information on the investigation from translating other statements, intercepts, conversations, etc., that she was very likely to allow those other information streams to cloud or influence her perceptions of Amanda Knox and of Knox's statements.
So the point boils down to that Donnino was not at all an impartial interpreter or translator of Amanda's statements or intents - she was serving the POLICE and she was INTIMATELY involved in the investigation - she was essentially on police payroll - and was not serving Amanda Knox in an impartial manner. So whether she at that time was a commissioned officer or not, she was still there to do the work of the POLICE. And without the audio recordings (which according to one UK reporter she must also have been working to translate and transcribe after the arrests) we really do not have any way to determine whether she translated Amanda's words or even the words of investigating officers correctly.
I think Hellmann does a pretty good job of dissecting Donnino's role and her testimony by putting it all into the context of Amanda's growing sense of grief for her friend and fear of a killer on the loose. And all that the prosecution seems able to allege is "She was eating pizza when she should have been crying; she started crying when she should have been eating sandwiches..." Yet no physical evidence ties Knox to the crime at all and any circumstantial case requires such a contortion of the obvious as to be ludicrous. Sorry... I don't buy it at all.
As the fictional Mr. Spock would say, "Fascinating! Most Fascinating!"
Look up the murder case against Kevin Fox in the murder of Riley Fox, and study carefully: it is instructive.
1. I have gotten one or two speeding tickets in 57 years of driving. Therefore by your standards I have "been in trouble with the police". Does that mean I am a murderer?
4. Police would have known they could reach Sollecito by calling Knox... how?
5. Knox's time was monopolized by police for reportedly about 53 out of 96 elapsed hours between the morning of 2 Nov and the morning of 6 Nov. The overnight interrogation began shortly after 9pm when Knox entered the Questura and come under intense observation - and ended only at around 6am when she finally signed the second "spontaneous" declaration. And how you get that from 11pm to 01:45 plus printing time, explanatory time, etc. is just "75 minutes" is far beyond me: even the police and prosecutor have repeatedly said 2-1/2+ hours. You are being VERY disingenuous, and you are still not accounting for the 4 hour interval between the first and second "spontaneous" declarations.
6. It was widely reported for 5 years that Donnino was a police officer - including by police. Now the tale is suddenly changed. Why?
7. ONE police officer said she "smelled of sex" - which is a pretty prejudicial comment in my book.
8. So what if she knocked her own head? Some people do that when under stress! It does not mean they are murderers!
12. You don't read carefully, do you? TYPED at 05:45 - then proofed - then printed - then "explainified" with three sets of pencil underlining - then signed. Or did you think Knox was just stood by the printer and signed the page as it was still rolling out into the tray?
13. LIE. Knox's own autograph in English of the morning of 6 Nov clearly states that she has no confidence that she was actually present at the time of the murder or that her identification of Lumumba is valid. Police can "say" whatever lies they want, but THEY turned over the document (copy) to the defense.
14. There is no evidence that the knife was ever taken to the cottage (except an not-well-documented report that police did after extracting it from Raff's apartment.) Whatever DNA was or was not found on the blade is IRRELEVANT because (1) it was NOT DERIVED FROM BLOOD, and (2) it is NOT demonstrated how it got there. (However, cross-contamination during the several days the knife was in police hands before delivery to Stefanoni - or in Stefanoni's uncertified-for-LCN-processing laboratory are both very reasonable hypotheses.)
15. The knife is meaningless if it was not in the murder room at the time of the murder and had no blood on it - and we know it had never had blood - or bleach - on it.
16. The knife can be excluded from the fatal wounds - so it NOT the murder weapon - and those wound it cannot be excluded from NO KNIFE could be excluded from - including all those in YOUR kitchen.
17. The "DNA" on the blade could not be verified: it was not split into two samples for separate processing as required by agreed ISFG and InterPol standards. Therefor it is by standards NOT RELIABLE. (Also the unauthorized / uncertified LCN processing made it unreliable and unacceptable.)
18. Whether Knox was "seen" at the store is in some dispute even among store clerks, but the fact that she did NOT purchase any bleach there is beyond dispute.
19. What I stated seems clear enough. Read it again.
20. Read it again.
Well, that tells the whole story right there: "Never mind that the evidence we convicted you on turned out to all be bad - we cannot let you go unless we have someone else in hand - so guilty or not you are 'IT'."
True Justice is not a game of "tag".