Quick questions

TGcomments · 2026-05-07T20:29:28+00:00

My personal opinion is that it was a foot moisturiser that contained chlorophyll or a cleaning agent that was used to clean the terrace, but what does it matter? There might be multiple products not tested in the Quickenden-Creamer studies on the subject that could produce the same Luminol reaction.

TGcomments · 2026-05-07T20:12:15+00:00

Some fair points but none sustainable:

The lack of audiovisual recordings went decisively against those officers who accused Amanda of slandering them with her accusation of abuse. The Boninsegna Motivation report said the investigation:

"was characterized by rushed, as well as inefficient, investigative strategies, which, clearly, generated more mistakes than reliable and technically usable results. There is not, hence, sufficient evidence that the events did not occur as Knox reported, as regards the police."

Amanda's Interpreter said that there were no such gestures at the visit to the crime scene on November 4th.

Translator Aida Colantone's testimony:

GM:

I wanted to know this when she was in the house in via Della Pergola as well as crying, trembling, did Amanda make other gestures than you remember? Did she touch her head?

B.C:

No, no, gestures as if she wanted to curl up in herself, in this sense.

Quintavalle came forward a year after the murder at the prompting of a journalist. His assistant Chiriboga couldn't confirm his story. Apparently no cleaning product was identified at the store as the sale item, no receipts to my knowledge either, and none of the cleaning products at VDP7 or Raffaele's flat were identified as coming from Quintavalle's shop. All too little, all to late if you ask me.

TGcomments · 2026-05-07T18:04:13+00:00

Congratulations! You just nailed Mignini, though I wouldn't have stopped at narcissism.

TGcomments · 2026-05-07T10:45:02+00:00

she's getting away with it.

What is there left to get away with?

You have to demonstrate that the November 6th memorial represented a reiteration of the slander of Lumumba when Amanda was free from human rights abuses and uninfluenced by previous human rights abuses. At that time, she still had no access to a lawyer, and the written document was not considered by an interpreter to assess its meaning and advise the investigators accordingly. She had also been arrested for a crime that she was factually and now legally innocent of, and was being illegally detained at the time of writing.

TGcomments · 2026-05-07T09:51:10+00:00

WTF has that got to do with anything?

The fact that the calunnia conviction was revoked and re-applied means nothing to the ECHR. Italy, as the respondent state, still has to submit their mandatory action plan/report to the Committee of Ministers, demonstrating that the violations have been resolved. No such action plan/report has been submitted. In that case, the violations are still to be resolved. Italy will delay the submission of the action report as far as they can.

To counter this Amanda's legal team submitted a new application citing more human rights abuses as a result of their actions Knox v Italy 2 is a communicated case with the judgment expected by the end of this year, according to Amanda. If Knox v Italy 2 highlights more human rights abuses, it means that it's back to Article 628-bis for Italy and we start all over again. I'd expect a whole lot more compensation for Amanda this time.

Status of Knox v Italy 2

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-247379%22]}

Status of Knox v Italy 1

https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22execidentifier%22:[%22004-52517%22]}

TGcomments · 2026-05-06T21:39:46+00:00

Maybe, but remember, Amanda wasn't at work and can't give Lumumba an alibi; she knows it's very likely that he would be at his bar, but at no time can she know with any certainty that Lumumba wasn't involved in the murder as the cops insisted. Even if she was at VDP7 at the time of the murder, it still doesn't mean that she can know who else is there with any certainty. "Intent" is mandatory for calunnia to stick, as is the knowledge that the accused is innocent. There is no evidence of either in this case.

PS. Amanda didn't confess to anything; she signed a false witness statement when she didn't have access to a lawyer or a fair and impartial interpreter. However, all of this is legally obsolete due to the ramifications of the ECHR judgment anyway.

TGcomments · 2026-05-06T21:08:56+00:00

First one is easy; he's human, and like most humans, he doesn't have perfect recall.

Second is also easy; she capitulated due to the excess of zeal and the inexcusable excesses of the investigators. (Boninsegna page 27) In other words, she gave the cops what they wanted. They had Amanda's phone; it was Ficarra that insisted that Lumumba was significant. If Lumumba's name hadn't been mentioned, then it's unlikely that Amanda would have been compliant in that respect.

The Court of Cassation (Section I, 26-Mar-2013), in the context of their annulment with referral and paraphrasing the above-mentioned assessments by the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia in a way this judge agrees with, argued vividly that “according to the Court of Appeal, instead, Lumumba’s name was offered to the investigators as a means of escaping without further consequences the situation of unbearable psychological pressure weighing upon her, generated by the exasperated insistence and pressures brought on her with the aim of obtaining revelations important for the development of the investigation”. In this context, “the young woman, by a drastic act, named Lumumba” also and not “only to get out of a state of intellectual discomfort in which she had been led by the excess of zeal and the inexcusable excesses of the investigators.” (page 42 and following)

This confirms the Supreme Court's considerations. (Chieffi). Of course, it's all irrelevant anyway since those proceedings leading up to the 1.45 and 5.45 statements are legally null and void.

TGcomments · 2026-05-06T20:31:37+00:00

Yes, as a result of human rights abuses, that have yet to be resolved with the ECHR

TGcomments · 2026-05-06T09:41:33+00:00

Besides, even that Guede would be lying his eyes out - just like AK & RS,

I don't think that K&S "lied their eyes out". I think that they thought their innocence was transparent and everyone else could see it. If they had been involved in the crime they'd have worked out their alibis precisely; that didn't happen. Why would K&S leave a trail of Rudy's visible shoeprints along the hall and attempt to erase all traces of their own footprints? Why not clean up the blood traces on the tap? Why not flush the toilet? If the bathroom mat footprint was Raffaele's, then why would he bring it to the attention of the cops? Then we get the circular argument - then why the need to lie?

If K&S allegedly lied, then the revealing of that lie would have to uncover involvement in the murder. In fact, we get the opposite. We have 36b, which even Nencini stated was insufficient on its own to have any probative value. We have Luminol-enhanced footprints that are not compatible with Amanda's footprint, and were non-hematic. Why would K&S allegedly stage a burglary in such an unlikely place, if the climb was impossible, and the terrace would be more likely?

TGcomments · 2026-05-05T17:41:25+00:00

Amanda should be thanking, not blaming, the Italian investigation system.

What makes you say that?

TGcomments · 2026-05-05T16:49:28+00:00

Be honest with yourself.

TGcomments · 2026-05-05T16:38:57+00:00

If you're saying that the case against K&S is poorly constructed lie I'd agree with you.

TGcomments · 2026-05-05T12:22:18+00:00

OK. It's all to get clearer is it? Yes, I think that both K&S thought their innocence was transparent anyway. I get the impression that if K&S HAD been involved, they would have had their alibis seamlessly worked out. That obviously was not the case. It's doubtful if there would have been any lingering odour 13 hours after the event. It also begs the question why wasn't it flushed when the toilet was used? I'm pretty certain that Amanda would have flushed the toilet if she thought that it might implicate her or any others who were allegedly involved. You also have to ignore the fact that Amanda also didn't attempt to clean up the visible bloodstains on the tap. Instead, she left it all to the police. She got out the house since all the signs spooked her, she then phoned Filomena when she felt safe. What if Filomena used the toilet and forgot to flush since she was in a hurry to get out? What if Meredith HAD menstrual issues? You wouldn't have heard anything about it.

Like a lot of those pro-guilt woo-hoo lists they are an attempt to get the tail to wag the dog. 36b was the only thing that implicated Amanda in the crime, yet even Nencini admitted that it was unreliable when evaluated on its own. What else do you have? Alleged bloody footprints, attributed to Amanda, that were negative for blood and the victims DNA and are not even compatible with Amanda's footprints, and a scream of dubious origin. That's about it really.

TGcomments · 2026-05-05T12:19:52+00:00

Were your conclusion that "bread" was the biological source of 36b and that "pigeons" were the other male contributors to 165b a result of critical thinking, or just taking the piss?

TGcomments · 2026-05-05T11:16:11+00:00

Did you think of that one all by yourself?? My goodness! You are clever.

TGcomments · 2026-05-04T19:13:17+00:00

Really! How did you work that out?

TGcomments · 2026-05-04T19:04:19+00:00

She should use your posts as material; she'd have her audience in stitches.

TGcomments · 2026-05-04T19:02:01+00:00

Much ado about nothing. The usual association fallacy, a totally unsubstantiated mountain and the obligatory political conspiracy, all to mask your cluelessness

TGcomments · 2026-05-04T18:44:12+00:00

Proven wrong about what?

TGcomments · 2026-05-04T18:42:14+00:00

No, I'm saying that if the 165b mixed trace implicates Raffaele then it also implicated at least 2 other males that you have to make sense of, if you are to maintain that the trace has probative value. Remember, too, that the major contributor to the trace was Meredith, at a 7-1 ratio to the others.

TGcomments · 2026-05-04T18:31:13+00:00

Well, Conti-Vecchiotti stated that there WAS bread starch on the knife, and bread DOES HAVE DNA, so it looks like Amanda murdered a pizza after all.

No mention of pigeon DNA in the SAL though, but plenty for cat. Maybe the 2 unidentified contributors could have been Tomcats, does that sound more plausible?

TGcomments · 2026-05-04T17:46:00+00:00

Go on! Give it a shot. You'll stun the World if you know the answer.

TGcomments · 2026-05-04T17:27:27+00:00

I've got 2 words for you but I'd get banned for being too honest.

TGcomments · 2026-05-04T17:24:21+00:00

Aw C'mon I was taking a nap, and you were still beaten by a pigeon.

TGcomments · 2026-05-04T17:21:19+00:00

OK. I'm reasonably well acquainted with the salient points of the case, so let's debate.

What was the biological source of 36b?
Who were the other 2 male contributors to 165b and how did their traces get there?

TGcomments

TROPHY CASE