Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[acbytesla]

What DNA or blood other than the one foot print was found in the MK/AK bathroom?

I always find it interesting what elements of Rudi's story the different sides choose to believe.

Had Rudi not told his tale of woe would people think that after his initial cleanup after seeing his work perhaps he then became sick to his stomach and went to the other bathroom.

Maybe Dan O. or another evidence expert will provide information of Rudi's DNA being found in the MK/AK bathroom.

I hope Nonsecini will not now be used here as proof of anything. His opinions are of the same level of value as Massei.

If people here were to write their theories of the crime I'm sure we would get many versions. Some people think Napoleoni recognized Rudi's MO immediately and started framing the kids on the 2nd. Some think that the police deleted the text from Patrick to Amanda. Some think he carried a knife with him. Some think he found one at the cottage like at the nursery.

While motivations provide material for endless debate in a case like this I don't think they are helpful in the long run and are a major cause for the Italian system being so slow.

About the only thing I thing I really believe Rudy about is a general estimate of the time. I have no doubt that Rudy weaved some truth into his lies, that in itself is not unusual as the best lies are always interwoven with the truth. Not that Rudy tells a good lie. But how do you weave a "good lie" around the known facts if you are Rudy?

Given the significant amount of physical evidence that Rudy left at the crime scene, there is little doubt that Rudy was an active participant in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

The rest of it is just nonsense. Rudy is trying desperately to tell a that "good lie" to explain the indisputable facts.

I refuse to believe that Rudy had any kind of date with Meredith. Not only does he seem like an unlikely paramour for Meredith, there is not a single thing that backs up this story. RUDY had to explain his being in the cottage and he took what leaks that he learned from the media and what he remembered from the murder and "tried" to come up with a believable story.

But it's not believable in any way. Rudy reminds me of the kid with his face covered in chocolate trying to tell his parents that he didn't get in to the candy drawer. Except his story is not very charming.

No one saw him with Meredith for even a minute at the Halloween party. Grinder proposes that it could have been on the down low..so we wouldn't know.

But aye there lies the rub....no one knows and his story is entirely self serving.

So, I'm not sure how the PGP explains what Rudy says are lies and what he says is truth.... But I guaranty that their explanation is far more convoluted than anything I would ever come up....or have heard from most of the PIP.

 

[Vibio]

There is a lot for me to comment on since my last post but I'm rushing and will be back later... in the meantime: just as I asked in post 6815 about this Ron Hendry person, I'd also like to know something about "Italian writer Luca Cheli" (as I see him described elsewhere).

A search here in Italy leads to nothing except for an office worker at an insurance company in Turin.

An architect in the city of Lucca.

And a salesman in a electronics appliance store.

No bylines for any newspapers or magazines, no books, no videos. Nothing.

Any info on his professional background?

Thanks for any help.

 

[Bill Williams]

There is a lot for me to comment on since my last post but I'm rushing and will be back later... in the meantime: just as I asked in post 6815 about this Ron Hendry person, I'd also like to know something about "Italian writer Luca Cheli" (as I see him described elsewhere).

A search here in Italy leads to nothing except for an office worker at an insurance company in Turin.

An architect in the city of Lucca.

And a salesman in a electronics appliance store.

No bylines for any newspapers or magazines, no books, no videos. Nothing.

Any info on his professional background?

Thanks for any help.

I think his basic qualification is that he can read.

So it is both you (Vibeo) and Cheli who are the Italian speakers/here. You should be at page 219 now.

Does Nencini really say on page 219 that if the defence had suspicions of contamination, they should have pointed out those suspicions on Nov 2nd, when the evidence was being collected?

Heck, one does not have to have qualifications or even speak Italian to know that there was no defence, or even accused on Nov 2.

But you wish to know Cheli's background. Can ad hominem remarks be far behind, while you evade the issues he raises.

 

[acbytesla]

There is a lot for me to comment on since my last post but I'm rushing and will be back later... in the meantime: just as I asked in post 6815 about this Ron Hendry person, I'd also like to know something about "Italian writer Luca Cheli" (as I see him described elsewhere).

A search here in Italy leads to nothing except for an office worker at an insurance company in Turin.

An architect in the city of Lucca.

And a salesman in a electronics appliance store.

No bylines for any newspapers or magazines, no books, no videos. Nothing.

Any info on his professional background?

Thanks for any help.

Why Vibio? Seeking to make an ad hominem attack? Why not just address the logic in Cheli's article?

As for Ron Hendry. Ron Hendry is reconstruction engineer. He reviews an accident after it happens and reconstructs what happened.

As for your questions. Did Hendry actually visit the crime scene? No. He was provided with all of the crime scene photos by the defense team. Photos that most of us have never seen.

He did NOT attend the trial and never testified. Do you actually think that makes a difference in his credibility?

 

[Grinder]

Given the significant amount of physical evidence that Rudy left at the crime scene, there is little doubt that Rudy was an active participant in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

I don't believe that anyone doubts that.

I refuse to believe that Rudy had any kind of date with Meredith. Not only does he seem like an unlikely paramour for Meredith, there is not a single thing that backs up this story. RUDY had to explain his being in the cottage and he took what leaks that he learned from the media and what he remembered from the murder and "tried" to come up with a believable story.

While I believe it remains a possibility your refusal is so hard to resist. I believe that there is a certain prejudice and bias against Rudi. certainly his involvement in the murder and refusal to tell all is justification for part of that it isn't the whole story. Rudi was a young athletic man that wasn't bad looking and if the guy downstairs is an example of her taste, looks weren't important. The initial reports were of consensual sex and a sex game. There was a very odd turn in the police leaks about the third day when stories made the case explicitly that she had no fault. It seemed very strange at the time

But it's not believable in any way. Rudy reminds me of the kid with his face covered in chocolate trying to tell his parents that he didn't get in to the candy drawer. Except his story is not very charming.

Chocolate. Nice choice.

No one saw him with Meredith for even a minute at the Halloween party. Grinder proposes that it could have been on the down low..so we wouldn't know.

But aye there lies the rub....no one knows and his story is entirely self serving.

I propose that the british girls were probably so drunk they wouldn't have noticed or remembered. That's all. I think it is another possibility and adds a connection which as we all know reduces the gravity of the evidence.

So, I'm not sure how the PGP explains what Rudy says are lies and what he says is truth.... But I guaranty that their explanation is far more convoluted than anything I would ever come up....or have heard from most of the PIP.

Just like people here they just take what they want and discard the rest.

I don't believe the scream at all, not just the time. He read about Amanda's accusation and figured he would aid in her prosecution by backing the time.

 

[Bill Williams]

There is a lot for me to comment on since my last post but I'm rushing and will be back later... in the meantime: just as I asked in post 6815 about this Ron Hendry person, I'd also like to know something about "Italian writer Luca Cheli" (as I see him described elsewhere).

A search here in Italy leads to nothing except for an office worker at an insurance company in Turin.

An architect in the city of Lucca.

And a salesman in a electronics appliance store.

No bylines for any newspapers or magazines, no books, no videos. Nothing.

Any info on his professional background?

Thanks for any help.

I don't mean to be a pest, Vibeo......

But have you got to the Italianlanguage part in the Nencini report yet which says that 2 of the Y-Haplotypes on Meredith's bra-clasp probably belong to two of Meredith's girlfriends?

What particular expertise would you want Cheli to have to legitimately comment on this?

 

[acbytesla]

I propose that the british girls were probably so drunk they wouldn't have noticed or remembered. That's all. I think it is another possibility and adds a connection which as we all know reduces the gravity of the evidence.

How do you know how drunk they all were? Just because Meredith was probably intoxicated at some time during the party doesn't mean every one else was. Did anyone even "see" Rudy at this party? Your argument is circular here Grinder. You insert a possibility that all the British girls were "probably" drunk and that it is "possible" in this supposed drunken stupor they would miss one of the very few black people in Perugia talking with their friend Meredith and therefore it is " a possibility" and that reduces the gravity of the evidence?

If even a single person could say that they had seen Rudy speaking to Meredith or that he was even at the same party as Meredith at the same time, I'd agree that it is "reasonably possible" that they arranged a date. Not that it was likely...just possible. But without any kind of reinforcement, I think it is only infinitesimally possible and not reasonably possible at all, and therefore should be ignored and dismissed.

I don't believe the scream at all, not just the time. He read about Amanda's accusation and figured he would aid in her prosecution by backing the time.

I don't know if I believe the scream either..but who knows? I think it is irrelevant.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't mean to be a pest, Vibeo......

But have you got to the Italianlanguage part in the Nencini report yet which says that 2 of the Y-Haplotypes on Meredith's bra-clasp probably belong to two of Meredith's girlfriends?

What particular expertise would you want Cheli to have to legitimately comment on this?

To be clear what's at stake here. Nencini is trying to argue against contamination of the bra-clasp, despite Stefanoni herselfoffering four possible routes in her own 2009 testimony to the Massei court.

Nencini has to argue that the only Y-Haplotype which is there which has a 1/300,000 chance of belonging to Raffaele is there because of criminality. The other three have to be there "innocently".

So without demonstrating it, Nencini borrows "probablies" from Massei, and says the second Y-Haplotype is probablythe botfriend's from downstairs. But what about the other two? If they are two other boys, then Nencini is actually arguing that Meredith was very promiscuous, or that contamination is more than likely for the whole clasp.

So...... let's not ask Cheli's background..... let's ask for Nencini's background for claiming that the third and fourth Y-Haplotytpe belong to women.

With all due respect, Vibeo, you keep asking for the background of the wrong people. What is Nencini's background to properly evaluate DNA evidence? That's the question which is raised by a plain-text reading of the guy's report.

 

[acbytesla]

I most certainly do not drive Chevrolets.


--

Why? Is there something wrong with Chevys??

 

[Bill Williams]

In short, if Cassazione upholds the Nencini report, in Italy it will become a "procedural fact" that women are men.

 

[Grinder]

How do you know how drunk they all were? Just because Meredith was probably intoxicated at some time during the party doesn't mean every one else was. Did anyone even "see" Rudy at this party? Your argument is circular here Grinder. You insert a possibility that all the British girls were "probably" drunk and that it is "possible" in this supposed drunken stupor they would miss one of the very few black people in Perugia talking with their friend Meredith and therefore it is " a possibility" and that reduces the gravity of the evidence?

Let's see. We have Shaky's testimony about having to pour one of them into his car another time because she was too drunk to walk. They stayed until 4 am and the good girl Meredith was so drunk she still had a drink or two in her system at 10 that night 18 hours later.

How few black people are there in Perugia. Do you count N. Africans?

I don't think you understand circular or straw man. Go read Galati to understand gravity of circumstantial evidence.

If even a single person could say that they had seen Rudy speaking to Meredith or that he was even at the same party as Meredith at the same time, I'd agree that it is "reasonably possible" that they arranged a date. Not that it was likely...just possible. But without any kind of reinforcement, I think it is only infinitesimally possible and not reasonably possible at all, and therefore should be ignored and dismissed.

Do you think the PLE made that effort? They didn't find a witness on their own.

I don't know if I believe the scream either..but who knows? I think it is irrelevant.

I do believe that's a new opinion. Good for you.

 

[acbytesla]

Let's see. We have Shaky's testimony about having to pour one of them into his car another time because she was too drunk to walk. They stayed until 4 am and the good girl Meredith was so drunk she still had a drink or two in her system at 10 that night 18 hours later.

One of them? I don't drink at all Grinder, but I have lots of friends that do and I go out with them. There is a drunk in every crowd and a teetotaler as well.

How few black people are there in Perugia. Do you count N. Africans?

Huh?? Not really, since many of them are light skinned as Southern Europeans. Rudy is BLACK....or at least a very dark brown. It is my understanding that Perugia has a very small population of blacks...but hey, I could be wrong about that. My perspective and this really has little to do about race but about uniqueness. Black people STAND OUT in a predominantly Caucasian or Mediterranean crowd. Just as a white person would in Nigeria or Kenya.

I don't think you understand circular or straw man. Go read Galati to understand gravity of circumstantial evidence.

No, I understand it just fine. And your argument in regards to this is circular or maybe more accurately "begging the question". Rudy says he met Meredith at a party and arranged a date...so it must be a possibility.

Do you think the PLE made that effort? They didn't find a witness on their own.

Of course they probably did...but I really don't know the answer. The fact is, that they didn't find one and now we are back to Rudy.

I do believe that's a new opinion. Good for you.

No, not really, I've argued about the time...but I have never been able to do much with the "scream". Maybe she screamed, maybe not. Either way, I don't really think anyone but Rudy actually noticed it...but maybe he worried that someone did....but as I said, I don't know, and I'm not sure how it is relevant.

 

[Planigale]

What about this from Amanda's translation of part of the motivations? He at least addresses it here and goes on to assert that selective or not, someone cleaned up:

"it has been much discussed, especially by the defense of the defendants, whether a “selective” clean-up of the crime scene is possible by the authors of the crime. this possibility was denied on the basis of the empirical impossibility of a “naked eye” to identify and select the singular traces, often invisible, to destroy. it was also excluded that someone in the cottage of via della pergola, on the night between november 1st and 2nd, 2007, after having committed the murder of meredith kercher, could “selectively clean” the traces left by the authors of the crime, destroying all of the traces of the defendants in question, and leaving at the crime scene all of those traces that would have lead investigators to rudy hermann guede.

the affirmation, if apparently agreeable theoretically, must be correlated with the case in question, of which there are certain peculiarities.

it is peculiar, for example, that no traces of amanda marie knox were found in the cottage of via della pergola if not those which are refer-able to the murder – nor of raffaele sollecito. for the latter the explanation may be simple, that he had only just begun his sentimental relationship with amanda marie knox, and so had his patronage of her house, but regarding amanda marie knox the explanation is not simple at all, because she had been living there since the previous september.

the lack of biological traces of amanda marie knox at the cottage, if not those refer-able to the murder, is a circumstance that is surely singular and at the same time not easily explainable, if not with conjecture. but there are other examples, all of which have the same vulnus: to likely be conjecture.

the court retains that in fulfilling its duty, it must limit itself to a reasoning that is founded upon objective facts; upon that which emerged procedurally that are the most objective possible.
an argument characteristically objective that emerged procedurally was evidence that, after the murder of meredith kercher, selective or not, there was a clean-up of the traces of the murder, and a maneuvering of the body of poor meredith into a position (between the armoire and the wall of the room and covered by a duvet) that certainly doesn’t correspond with the position in which the girl died, at the end of the aggressive phase. someone spent much time within the cottage on the night between november 1st and 2nd, 2007, altering the crime scene and destroying numerous traces. the evidence provided by the scientific police proves this incontestable truth, which the court’s reasoning must take into consideration."


ETA (added quotes around Nencini's motivation copied from AK's website)

One of the police scientists (I think the finger print specialist) tried to put this right in the first trial. He said that it was not true there was no evidence of Knox being present. There were multiple prints most of which were smudged so not worth documenting. In any case they only bothered documenting prints they thought were significant. Prints from the residents in the places prints from residents would be were not recorded. There clearly was some Knox DNA around, the problem is since only 'suspicious' sites were sampled and no ambient background obtained, any DNA from Knox has been regarded as significant, whilst it might be just background.

 

[anglolawyer]

This is why some say that this report had more than one author who did not compare their notes. I'm sure someone will come up with some dietrology to explain why someone took a lamp into a room NOT to do a clean-up.

Incidentally, I'm not sure I mentioned this before but, in point of fact, the lamp was NOT in the room or, if it was, the prosecution forgot to call any evidence to prove it was which amounts to the same thing. So Nencini clearly did not read this article when framing the defendants his judgment.

 

[Bill Williams]

Incidentally, I'm not sure I mentioned this before but, in point of fact, the lamp was NOT in the room or, if it was, the prosecution forgot to call any evidence to prove it was which amounts to the same thing. So Nencini clearly did not read this article when framing the defendants his judgment.

I now strongly suspect that it is YOU who deposited one of the female Y-Haplotypes on the bra-clasp, and Nencini is for some reason trying to protect you.

But if true, that qualifies you as the "Lady of the lamp." If the lampshade fits, wear it.

 

[Bill Williams]

One of the police scientists (I think the finger print specialist) tried to put this right in the first trial. He said that it was not true there was no evidence of Knox being present. There were multiple prints most of which were smudged so not worth documenting. In any case they only bothered documenting prints they thought were significant. Prints from the residents in the places prints from residents would be were not recorded. There clearly was some Knox DNA around, the problem is since only 'suspicious' sites were sampled and no ambient background obtained, any DNA from Knox has been regarded as significant, whilst it might be just background.

Please note the rhetorical sleight of hand Nencini tries to get away with....

- no biological traces of Amanda Knox were found, and
- the lack of biological traces of Amanda at the cottage​

Are not the same thing. The Scientific Police did not test every place in the cottage, in fact if they bothered to collect Amanda's clothes off of her bed, they would have found plenty of biological traces.

Nencini is conflating what was looked for with what was actually there. Nice try Nencini, to use this sleight of hand to convict innocents.

 

[anglolawyer]

One of the police scientists (I think the finger print specialist) tried to put this right in the first trial. He said that it was not true there was no evidence of Knox being present. There were multiple prints most of which were smudged so not worth documenting. In any case they only bothered documenting prints they thought were significant. Prints from the residents in the places prints from residents would be were not recorded. There clearly was some Knox DNA around, the problem is since only 'suspicious' sites were sampled and no ambient background obtained, any DNA from Knox has been regarded as significant, whilst it might be just background.

Were her prints on the hair dryer or her cupboard door or any of the other places (hairbrush) she might have touched when taking a shower? After all, the guilters (and the judge) don't believe her shower story so there should be no prints on those things.

Luca Cheli is just an observer like you, Vibio, and me. Funny that your first reaction is to demand to know his credentials (which he gives at the beginning of the article). He makes some great points, and funny ones too. If all this is so obvious it should be easy to pick holes in what he says. One of them is to point out the contradictions in Nencini's reasoning about the shower. Briefly, where the shower is concerned, the two apartments are miles apart and it's just insane that she would travel from one to the other just to shower, so she's obviously lying, but when it comes to switching cutlery, they are practically next door with a hole cut through to go back and forth instantly. Please reconcile.

 

[carbonjam72]

delete dupe

 

[carbonjam72]

Staged Break-in - glass on clothes - corresponds to law office break-in

From the analysis of the Nencini motivation on the Wrongful Conviction News website -

From 3. The post delictum (after the murder)

The Staged Break-in - relating to the broken glass on top of the clothes, and comparing it to the same circumstances at the law office break-in being attributed to Guede -

The other element compelling Nencini to rule the break-in as staged is the notorious presence of pieces of glass above the clothes on the floor of Romanelli’s room.
This is a point I want to expand a little bit.
First of all, according to Battistelli’s and Romanelli’s testimonies in front of the Massei court, the glasses on top of the clothes were “small” and “few” and moreover they were both on top and under the clothes and what should be the explanation of those under the clothes in a scenario involving simulation?
But that is not all. Let us look at page 47 of the PMF translation of the Massei ruling (page 34 of the original Italian), where the (then) alleged previous burglaries by Rudi Guede are discussed: “Objects were taken from the [Brocchi and Palazzoli] law office, glass was found on clothes” (“sopra gli indumenti”, which literally means “on top of clothes”). It is incredible to read this in Massei and to think that we are here, four years after the publication of that report, still discussing “glass on top of clothes” as a fundamental proof of a staged break-in. It is even more incredible that this has been neglected by cohorts of judges, including the “supreme” ones (in Italy judges belonging to the Court of Cassation are often referred to as “supreme judges”). Who staged that one, honorable judges? Yes, because if glass on top of clothes means faked burglary, then that one had to be faked too, otherwise we should, honorable judges, think that glass on top of clothes proves nothing and that we (and you) have spent years debating red herrings.Or, conceding to Nencini’s high opinion of Guede as a professional burglar, that he was so smart to think that purposely spreading a few broken glass pieces on top of clothes was an excellent way to sidetrack investigators, who would have immediately thought to a faked burglary.

 

[carbonjam72]

More from Cheli - Nencini think's Guede's Break-in style would have been familiar to police - hence he would not have faked a break-in in a manner that would have identified him -

"At this point Nencini asks three rhetorical questions he is going to answer himself:
1) who had interest to operate a cleanup?
2) who was sure to have available all the time needed to operate a systematic alteration of the crime scene?
3) what was the aim of that activity?
The answer to the first question is certainly not Guede because he barely knew Meredith and his only interest was that of quickly leaving the place. Moreover why would Guede have cleaned “everywhere” except the place where he had committed the crime (but that room was deemed impossible to clean according to Nencini himself) and where he had defecated?
“Rudi Hermann Guede was absolutely not linkable by the investigators to the apartment of the cottage at Via della Pergola used by the victim, nor to the victim herself”. (page 84)
Really? Stefano Bonassi (one of the boys downstairs) named him to the investigators and if it were true that Knox knew him “rather well” as stated by the ruling on page 92, then an innocent Knox could have as well named him to the investigators (as indeed she did, but without even remembering his name).
Not just that, Nencini states at page 84 that Guede “had perpetrated before thefts using the same technique” and that hence for him faking a break-in would have just meant calling upon himself the attention of the investigators. Now, besides admitting that our highly skilled burglar had used the same “uselessly complex” technique before, Nencini also implies that he was known to the investigators because of his activities (and he reiterates on page 92 that the police would have quickly arrived at him) and if so, clearly just his name made by Bonassi or Knox would have raised their interest.So a very cursory cleanup by Guede is not outside the realm of possibilities, a short cleanup operated in a state of excited frenzy, a state in which he could have forgotten or considered immaterial his “gift” in the small bathroom. Of course to accept this one should also drop Nencini’s conception of Guede as a cold-blooded professional."