Continuation Part Nine: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dan O.]

All laptops are plugged in, charging I assume.

Amanda and Laura's laptops are closed and charging.
Meredith's is open, probably on, and charging.
Why?

Don't assume. The cottage has a severe shortage of electrical outlets and where in america the standard outlet is a duplex, all the outlets in the cottage appear to be simplex. If someone needed to say plug in a lamp they would have to unplug the laptop from the one outlet first.

In dsc_0178 you can see the plug to Meredith's laptop sitting on the floor and there is no telltale green or orange light ring around where the cord plugs into the laptop telling the status of the power.

Amanda's laptop is plugged into an adaptor in the outlet just inside her bedroom door with the cord crossing the entrance over to the desk. Her phone charger is sitting on the floor under that outlet indicating that she unplugs her laptop to charge her phone.

Laura's laptop is plugged into a plug strip under her desk. That the plug strip is probably plugged into a wall outlet but this cannot be seen.

Filomena has two phone chargers and a desk lamp that all plug into a cube in the outlet by her bedside table. The phone chargers are both unplugged.

With all the clutter on Filomena's desk, there is no place for a laptop to set. She may not use the laptop at her desk and possibly charges it at work instead.

The TV on top of Filomena's wardrobe is not plugged in either.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a conspiracy or a collective fantasy

I am waiting for someone to say, "I just don't believe that there was a big, bad conspiracy against Kelly Michaels. She must have done something."

Lanna Manning wrote, "While the verdict of the court, labeling the unfortunate accused as sick child molesters, still stands in many cases, the verdict of history is slowly changing. More and more people now believe that the Great Day-Care Witch Hunt was a collective fantasy of prosecutors, social workers and frightened parents." No one thinks that the police, social workers, and parents sat around a big table and planned out how they were going to convict her. It is more a question of a story's achieving a critical mass of belief.

 

[Strozzi]

An excellent point. Besides, why would Giacomo refuse a request? He was hundreds of kilometers away IIUC. Filomena had an alibi, and she was in the legal profession. Why would she refuse? It makes no sense, twice over.

I'll answer the question of why would/should Giacomo or Filomena refuse to voluntarily give a DNA sample.

Because the Italian police (not Carabineri):

1. are ignorant of DNA,
2. believe that dried DNA cannot be spread - only wet DNA,
3. don't realize it can fly (180 cm just from talking/breathing),
4. believe contamination probably does not exist unless the defense can prove precisely how it occurred,
5. repackage evidence items on which they intend to test DNA on the same table where earlier they handled the victim's DNA,
6. don't change their dirty gloves between handling evidence items,
7. amplify LCN matter way beyond the capabilities of their equipment,
8. use broken and DNA-contaminated lab equipment to examine DNA,
9. withhold test records,
10. misplace other test records in Stefanoni's garage,
11. claim to never have contamination in their lab,
12. pay police lab supervisors to serve as "objective" expert witnesses,
13. can't duplicate their test results but still consider the results valid,
14. lie in court about quantity of DNA,
15. misclassify human DNA as feline.
16. lie under oath
17. misread or lie about picogram quantities.
18. Can't read a clock.
19. Can find a witness to swear you were there.
20. Returns to a contaminated crime scene 47 days later to locate evidence to test against you.

What did I overlook?

Voluntarily allowing Stefanoni to look at your DNA would be like voluntarily going to a surgeon who accidentally amputates a foot when he is supposed to remove your gall bladder. It is called "malpractice".

 

[Strozzi]

Vibio: I remember your earlier comments about Knox's birthday. So I want to ask you if you are aware that today, July 29, is Mussolini's and Mignini's birthday?

 

[codyjuneau]

.

I think Mignini may not have thought of her a a liar and an actress until AFTER she recanted her statement, AND they realized Lumumba was innocent.

It is possible the police originally thought she had done nothing more than facilitate a date at the cottage between Lumumba and Meredith which resulted in Lumumba murdering Meredith. For various reasons they had this theory before, during, and immediately after the interrogation. They thought she was either too afraid of Lumumba to tell anyone, she had blocked it from her memory, or both. When they convinced her that she had blocked the memory out ("She buckled and made an admission of facts that we knew were correct") they rushed out and arrested Lumumba and announced case closed to the world. At the time, the police seemed satisfied with her statement that she was cowering in the kitchen holding her hands over her ears while Lumumba was murdering Meredith in the bedroom.

Later, when she re-unblocked her real memory and recanted, and it became apparent that Lumumba had an airtight alibi, Mignini and his minions decided they had been duped and embarrassed by the clever evil American witch bitch so therefore she must be the actual murderer. They never got over it, and any possibility of a fair prosecution and trial after that became impossible.

I am not locked to this theory, but it does explain a lot, and understanding the problem is fundamental to solving the problem. I would like to hear arguments for or against it, particularly with regards to the time-line. For this theory; a sincere police investigation before the interrogation, a prejudiced and dishonest police investigation after Amanda's recanting of her coerced statement.

Interestingly, nothing of the above precludes Rudy from being a police informer, or of some police protecting him. It's just that they either never considered him before the forensic test results were obtained, or if a few did, they never mentioned it.

Cody
.

This may be helpful,

Student killer leaves bloody footprint clue

John Follain Perugia and Dipesh Gadher
Published: 4 November 2007

POLICE investigating the murer of Meredith Kercher, the British exchange student who had her throat cut in Italy, believe that she new her killer and were focusing their inquiries on a "narrow" field of suspects. As Kercher's father prepared to fly out to the medieval Umbrian city of Perugia, detectives continued to search for a murder weapon, which they believe to be a knife or possibly a shard of broken glass.

The 21-year-old's semi-naked body was found in her bedroom on Friday after police were called to her home by her flatmates. Police were yesterday trying to trace Kercher's "occasional" Italian boyfriend, but they have not ruled out the possibility that her killer was a woman. Sources close to the investigation said there was no evidence of a struggle and Kercher had had "consensual sex"before her death. A full postmortem examination is due to be conducted this morning.

The above is the headline and full text ahead of the pay wall. It is worth analysing in some detail. One point I had not noticed is the proposition the weapon could be a glass shard. This is tantamount to declaring the window could have been broken prior to the murder, which I had thought was never countenanced. It renders more unforgiveable not investigating recent window breakers in the time and location proximity.
Who was the female suspect? Why did the post mortem take three days to commence, and is this normal, or all about the sanctity of Italian holidays?

This early report keeps on giving.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article74799.ece

[/I]

He knows something now the police did not know on November 4th, despite several days with the crime scene.

.
Good point Samson, if the police still believed the murder weapon might have been a shard of glass from the broken window, then they definitely had not locked onto the post murder staged burglary idea yet. I think it is a bit of a myth that Battistelli thought the broken window was part of a staged burglary. His comment about this being no burglary was made before he realized a murder had occurred and was mainly a deduction he made because there were computers that had not been stolen.

I keep seeing references to the police belief that Meredith had consensual sex. I do not understand why the police thought that.

Cody
.

 

[codyjuneau]

I'll answer the question of why would/should Giacomo or Filomena refuse to voluntarily give a DNA sample.

Because the Italian police (not Carabineri):

1. are ignorant of DNA,
2. believe that dried DNA cannot be spread - only wet DNA,
3. don't realize it can fly (180 cm just from talking/breathing),
4. believe contamination probably does not exist unless the defense can prove precisely how it occurred,
5. repackage evidence items on which they intend to test DNA on the same table where earlier they handled the victim's DNA,
6. don't change their dirty gloves between handling evidence items,
7. amplify LCN matter way beyond the capabilities of their equipment,
8. use broken and DNA-contaminated lab equipment to examine DNA,
9. withhold test records,
10. misplace other test records in Stefanoni's garage,
11. claim to never have contamination in their lab,
12. pay police lab supervisors to serve as "objective" expert witnesses,
13. can't duplicate their test results but still consider the results valid,
14. lie in court about quantity of DNA,
15. misclassify human DNA as feline.
16. lie under oath
17. misread or lie about picogram quantities.
18. Can't read a clock.
19. Can find a witness to swear you were there.
20. Returns to a contaminated crime scene 47 days later to locate evidence to test against you.

What did I overlook?

Voluntarily allowing Stefanoni to look at your DNA would be like voluntarily going to a surgeon who accidentally amputates a foot when he is supposed to remove your gall bladder. It is called "malpractice".

.
Good post Strozzi, I think you covered it. I nominate this post for the RandyN award of calling a spade a spade.

RandyN, I hope you are doing well, I miss reading your posts.

Cody
.

 

[Samson]

This 44 year old case has effectively been laid to rest today without a solution. One arrest, no viable alternative suspects, yet a blonde woman was seen feeding a baby in the 5 days following. One bullet to the head each of man and wife, then deep sixed with farm axles, and Thomas had a fair alibi. And he was active in searching and proposing where the bodies might be. Many cases like this, except

A review of the Crewe murders found there was a chance police planted evidence - but the lawyer who independently looked into the review is more convinced of police wrong-doing.

David Jones QC independently reviewed a four-year police assessment of the investigation into the 1970 murders of Jeannette and Harvey Crewe.

The policy's review, spearheaded by Detective Superintendent Andy Lovelock, found there was a "distinct possibility" a .22 calibre cartridge had been planted in the Crewes' garden in an attempt to frame Arthur Allan Thomas.

But Mr Jones found the cartridge - known as exhibit 350 - was fabricated evidence and said there was enough evidence to send Detective Inspector Hutton, who headed the original investigation, to trial.

"My role as independent counsel was to come to my own conclusions and that's exactly what I've done."

He admitted it wasn't possible to say beyond reasonable doubt that it had been fabricated.

But Mr Jones said it was unlikely the bullet was fired, with the cartridge landing on the top of the soil and then being missed in the original search.

"It is my opinion that without exhibit 350, the evidence against Arthur Thomas was insufficient to have been capable of establishing his guilt and the verdicts could not be sustained," he said.
Det Supt Lovelock said there was no question police had the opportunity to create a piece of fabricated evidence, but there was still a possibility it was legitimate and had been overlooked in the first search of the property.

Think that old bra clasp!

 

[Samson]

.
Good post Strozzi, I think you covered it. I nominate this post for the RandyN award of calling a spade a spade.

RandyN, I hope you are doing well, I miss reading your posts.

Cody
.

I hope RandyN turns up on IIP if you are reading still.

 

[Strozzi]

This one's for you:

"Former Judge Donald D. Thompson, a veteran of 23 years on the bench, is on trial on charges he used a penis pump on himself in the courtroom while sitting in judgment of others."


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13599320/...rial-brings-lurid-charges-court/#.U9fQEZhTtFQ

Vibio, I remember that case when it was at trial. The judge was convicted on several counts of indecent exposure and sentenced to four years in prison, removed from the bench, and denied his $7,500/month judicial retirement pension for violating his judicial oath.

It shows that professionally-successful but disturbed people (lawyers) can achieve trusted positions of power (magistrates) and abuse it. I think that is universal.

Do you know what evidence was used to help convict him? Investigators checked the carpet, Thompson’s robes and the chair behind the bench and found semen, according to court records.

Yea, that's right. They actually performed DNA analysis on a putative semen stain. What a novel thing to do - test a putative semen stain.

 

[Desert Fox]

I'll answer the question of why would/should Giacomo or Filomena refuse to voluntarily give a DNA sample.

Because the Italian police (not Carabineri):

1. are ignorant of DNA,
2. believe that dried DNA cannot be spread - only wet DNA,
3. don't realize it can fly (180 cm just from talking/breathing),
4. believe contamination probably does not exist unless the defense can prove precisely how it occurred,
5. repackage evidence items on which they intend to test DNA on the same table where earlier they handled the victim's DNA,
6. don't change their dirty gloves between handling evidence items,
7. amplify LCN matter way beyond the capabilities of their equipment,
8. use broken and DNA-contaminated lab equipment to examine DNA,
9. withhold test records,
10. misplace other test records in Stefanoni's garage,
11. claim to never have contamination in their lab,
12. pay police lab supervisors to serve as "objective" expert witnesses,
13. can't duplicate their test results but still consider the results valid,
14. lie in court about quantity of DNA,
15. misclassify human DNA as feline.
16. lie under oath
17. misread or lie about picogram quantities.
18. Can't read a clock.
19. Can find a witness to swear you were there.
20. Returns to a contaminated crime scene 47 days later to locate evidence to test against you.

What did I overlook?

Voluntarily allowing Stefanoni to look at your DNA would be like voluntarily going to a surgeon who accidentally amputates a foot when he is supposed to remove your gall bladder. It is called "malpractice".

Granted, the US has a number of different cross purpose police forces but I am still a bit confused here - Would it have been the Polizia di Stato been those investigating?

 

[Strozzi]

.
Good point Samson, if the police still believed the murder weapon might have been a shard of glass from the broken window, then they definitely had not locked onto the post murder staged burglary idea yet. I think it is a bit of a myth that Battistelli thought the broken window was part of a staged burglary. His comment about this being no burglary was made before he realized a murder had occurred and was mainly a deduction he made because there were computers that had not been stolen.

I keep seeing references to the police belief that Meredith had consensual sex. I do not understand why the police thought that.

Cody
.

There are two possible reasons why the police may have thought Meredith had had consensual sex:

1. The police spotted two putative semen stains on the pillow under the victim's hips.
2. Giobbi determined Meredith was one of those young women who swivel her hips after bending over to put on her shoes.

 

[Vibio]

re: "semen" stain.

I'm not well informed on the subject. So I have questions:

Did any forensic experts actually claim it was semen?

I know that the defense wanted it tested at the last appeal. Did they ask for it to be tested at the first appeal? What was Hellman's response?

If the stain had been tested and DNA had been found, how would it have affected things?

If it had been Sollecito's the outcome would have been obvious, but if it had been Guede's? If instead, it had been of an unidentified male, what new slant would it have brought to the trial?

Could the stain have been dated, as to when it was left? If it could not have been dated... would it have been useful just the same? If so, how?

 

[Desert Fox]

re: "semen" stain.

I'm not well informed on the subject. So I have questions:

Did any forensic experts actually claim it was semen?

I know that the defense wanted it tested at the last appeal. Did they ask for it to be tested at the first appeal? What was Hellman's response?

If the stain had been tested and DNA had been found, how would it have affected things?

If it had been Sollecito's the outcome would have been obvious, but if it had been Guede's? If instead, it had been of an unidentified male, what new slant would it have brought to the trial?

Could the stain have been dated, as to when it was left? If it could not have been dated... would it have been useful just the same? If so, how?

I am pretty sure reading that it had a foot print in the stain from Guede. I believe that narrows down the time frame quite a bit to within a few hours (maybe even less than a hour) before the crime.

Assuming it is Guede's semen stain, it is another piece in the argument that all appearances are that he committed the crime alone. It is the further strengthening of the case on that issue.

If it was not semen and something else, why not just release that report?

 

[Vibio]

I am pretty sure reading that it had a foot print in the stain from Guede.

Link please?

Anyway, considering the rest: that's the best we can do? It just doesn't sound like a game changer in any way.

 

[Desert Fox]

That's the best we can do?

I am sure that there are others who can post in more detail.
Still, I think it is pretty telling that the prosecution did not seem to want the semen stain tested.
Lets be honest here. . . .If it turned out to be Raff's, the case is done for him.

 

[Vibio]

If this so called semen stain was so important... what was the defiance's request about having it tested during the first appeal? What was Hellman's response?

Also: semen or no....the reason for having it tested would be to find DNA, correct? If it had been done last year for the Nencini trial, the DNA would be years old (a lot more than those 46 days we hear so much about).

 

[MichaelB]

re: "semen" stain.

I'm not well informed on the subject. So I have questions:

Did any forensic experts actually claim it was semen?

I know that the defense wanted it tested at the last appeal. Did they ask for it to be tested at the first appeal? What was Hellman's response?

If the stain had been tested and DNA had been found, how would it have affected things?

If it had been Sollecito's the outcome would have been obvious, but if it had been Guede's? If instead, it had been of an unidentified male, what new slant would it have brought to the trial?

Could the stain have been dated, as to when it was left? If it could not have been dated... would it have been useful just the same? If so, how?

Yep, Professor Vinci did. Here's his report. http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/sperma_e_orma_ultima.pdf

They did request it be tested at Hellmann and he denied it as well. Look at the location of the stain right between the victims legs. What's that tell you? For me it shows he masturbated and/or raped her while she was dead with blood pouring out her neck. Torre said she would have been dead within 2 mins of being suffocated (after she was positioned on the pillow and undressed). So Guede's a sadist and the sexual assault was necrophilia. It shows there was no body moving hours later and makes an already absurd fantasy of Amanda and Raffaele killing with this guy even weirder.....what exactly were they doing while the virtual stranger they'd just teamed up with was pleasuring himself over a dead body. How was the prosecution going to explain that? Not testing it left it all up in the air as to what exactly happened and the sequence of events.

 

[Vibio]

So Nencini, just like Hellman, refused to have it tested.

Got it. Thanks.

 

[MichaelB]

If this so called semen stain was so important... what was the defiance's request about having it tested during the first appeal? What was Hellman's response?

Also: semen or no....the reason for having it tested would be to find DNA, correct? If it had been done last year for the Nencini trial, the DNA would be years old (a lot more than those 46 days we hear so much about).

Yeh but the DNA from semen is nuclear. There's no ifs or buts. The DNA on the clasp was LCN and contamination in the machine in the lab.

 

[Strozzi]

re: "semen" stain.

I'm not well informed on the subject. So I have questions:

Did any forensic experts actually claim it was semen?

I know that the defense wanted it tested at the last appeal. Did they ask for it to be tested at the first appeal? What was Hellman's response?

If the stain had been tested and DNA had been found, how would it have affected things?

If it had been Sollecito's the outcome would have been obvious, but if it had been Guede's? If instead, it had been of an unidentified male, what new slant would it have brought to the trial?

Could the stain have been dated, as to when it was left? If it could not have been dated... would it have been useful just the same? If so, how?

The stain was tentatively identified as semen by the way it visualized under a special light used by forensic investigators.

One of the two semen stains on the pillowcase shows Rudy's shoe's distinctive tread mark. The semen was wet/fresh when Rudy stepped on it. It is from the murder (and the prosecution and Maresca should know this.)

The defense asked for the semen stains to be analyzed in the Hellman appeal trial, and possibly in the Massei trial. The prosecution objected. The Kercher family attorney, Maresca, also objected to testing the semen - isn't that odd ? - given that the Kercher family said they want all the facts known.

It's importance would depend on to whom it was identified. If, for example, the stains' DNA is identified as belonging to any of the four women's boyfriends, there would be different explanations of how it got there and it's importance (probative value).

If it was Guede's, it would show he was more engaged in the events than he or the prosecution want known. If it belonged to witnesses Kokoman or Curatolo, then prosecution (and witness) claims as to who was where and who did what that evening would be revealed to be blatantly false.

Even if the lab cannot match the DNA to a specific male in a DNA database (Sollecito, Guede, Lumumba), the DNA data might be compared to DNA ancestral databases to narrow the ancestral (ethnic) origins of the male contributor. Suppose the results show the contributor to be of Rumanian/Bulgarian origin? Suppose Finnish/northern Slavic origin? Suppose Libyan origin? Suppose Italian? Suppose English/Irish with 20 percent Danish origins?

The data can tell possible or probable eye color, hair color (blond?), whether hair is straight or curly, whether ear lobes are probably attached or not.