Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[codyjuneau]

The detention order was re-issued by a judge panel presieded over by judge Ricciarelli on Dec. 5, it included several additional reasons (above all, the main piece of evidence for judge Ricciarelli was the the autopsy report; but there was also the kitchen knife). That Sollecito didn't provide an alibi to Knox is not a suggestion, and the fact that he changed his story is a core element of the various detention orders, not just of the first provisional decree of fermo by Mignini (the first detention order would have expired after 72 hours under Italian law; it's provisional, it's the other orders that matter).
The fact that Sollecito changed his story is on police papers and in his statement to Matteini. It's not just one person (Knox) bringing elements against him, it is two people, including he incriminating himself.
While two elements from the initial order proved wrong, in the following days there was a costant flow of further elements that kept on piling up against Knox and Sollecito (kitchen knife DNA, calunnia charge, blood DNA in the bathroom, autopsy report, bra clasp DNA, bare footprints on bathmat, bare footprints in corridor).

In the order of detention 6/11/2007, it states “…he was found in possession of a switchblade that could be compatible in the abstract, by size and type (total length 18 cm., of which 8.5 cm. was blade), the object that must have produced the most serious injury to the neck of the victim.”

But then, on the same date there is a Search and Seizure which states, “…inside the top drawer of the kitchen cutlery drawer, was found a large knife overall length 31cm., about which 17 cm of the blade and 14cm of the handle.”

So they have a blade of 8.5 cm they claim is compatible with the injury and, on the same day, they take a knife with a blade of 17 cm and suspect that is also the weapon. It doesn't seem they knew what they were looking for and they were just taking random knives until one would come close to matching what they needed.

.
All the cops needed was a knife, any knife, to convince the judge to lock Raffaele and Amanda up until they could find the real murder weapon. That is why the cop who selected the knife said 'that knife will do' or something to that effect. It seems that no one told Stefanoni about the ruse so she enthusiastically found DNA where only starch existed.

Cody
.

 

[Samson]

.
All the cops needed was a knife, any knife, to convince the judge to lock Raffaele and Amanda up until they could find the real murder weapon. That is why the cop who selected the knife said 'that knife will do' or something to that effect. It seems that no one told Stefanoni about the ruse so she enthusiastically found DNA where only starch existed.

Cody
.

It's still working pretty well this hoax. Who would have believed it? Mach has swallowed it hook line and sinker.

 

[js202]

It's still working pretty well this hoax. Who would have believed it? Mach has swallowed it hook line and sinker.

Well, but of course it makes perfect sense that Knox laid down the big kitchen knife with which she had brutally cut her roommate's throat, deviously making a pattern of blood that fits a smaller knife with a different hilt. All whilst leaving no other trace of her passing in the room. Indeed, this makes *perfect sense* to Mignini, Machiavelli, and the Mad Hatter.

 

[NancyS]

Well, but of course it makes perfect sense that Knox laid down the big kitchen knife with which she had brutally cut her roommate's throat, deviously making a pattern of blood that fits a smaller knife with a different hilt. All whilst leaving no other trace of her passing in the room. Indeed, this makes *perfect sense* to Mignini, Machiavelli, and the Mad Hatter.

And with managing to get no blood in the clothes she had been wearing earlier that day or any of her other possessions - it really is like she just wasn't there at all. And according to many of the pro-guilt, she didn't even shower - it's a miracle!

 

[js202]

And with managing to get no blood in the clothes she had been wearing earlier that day or any of her other possessions - it really is like she just wasn't there at all. And according to many of the pro-guilt, she didn't even shower - it's a miracle!

Yes, but of course, for a witch - some would say Luciferina! - like Knox, such things are all in a day's work.

 

[anglolawyer]

I think the Machiavelli collective (whose English is remarkably good just now compared to some earlier versions) is running a God of the Gaps strategy here. We all know the Knox case very well and there are multiple, detailed, English-language sources to refer to so he can't lie about the facts to any great extent without getting caught out.

However Mignini's delusional bungling of the Monster of Florence case is more poorly documented so they might as well try just denying all the facts completely. If all we have to go on are books by two journalists, who is to say that it was not all a labyrinthine conspiracy of Mafia ninja Mason paedophiles to frame the heroic master detective?

The problem with this line of argument is that we do know the Knox case, and so we do know that Mignini was at that time a delusional, corrupt bungler who made up wild conspiracy theories. Hence there is a major plausibility problem with the narrative that Mignini was a master detective on the trail of a huge conspiracy and was absolutely right about everything in the Narducci case, but then turned into an incompetent and unethical fantasist with no concept of proper police work in the Kercher case.

LOL. You do realise you are talking about a guy who found it deeply suspicious that only one of her fingerprints was found in her own house before leading expert evidence at trial to the effect that such a state of affairs was nothing unusual. This same genius insinuated she introduced her lamp into the victim's room but forgot to lead the readily-available evidence that would have proved she did (had she done so, that is).

 

[Diocletus]

LOL. You do realise you are talking about a guy who found it deeply suspicious that only one of her fingerprints was found in her own house before leading expert evidence at trial to the effect that such a state of affairs was nothing unusual. This same genius insinuated she introduced her lamp into the victim's room but forgot to lead the readily-available evidence that would have proved she did (had she done so, that is).

Yeah, and the same guy that said that a cat had sprayed blood all over the downstairs despite the facts that:

1. Cats don't use light switches
2. Cats don't grab comforters with a bloody hand
3. Cats don't remove sheets from beds
4. Cats don't use burglary tools, e.g., hammers
5. Cats can't unlock doors
6. Cats don't pull bathroom windows shut
7. Cats don't rip shower curtains down
8. Cats don't use flip flops
9. Cats don't wash their clothing in the bathroom
10. Cats don't ransack the wardrobe to find new trousers
11. Cats don't carry wet items that deposit films and drips of watery blood. In fact, cats hate water!
12. Cats don't leave blood spots that test positive for human DNA

But, cat burglars do.

 

[Diocletus]

So, how did the cat's blood myth start?

My theory so far is that the cops initially wanted to pin the murder on one of the guys downstairs. That's why they rushed samples from downstairs (and not upstairs) to Rome and through testing on November 5-6. The focus on the guys downstairs may have led them to conclude that the break-in was staged.

The testing of the downstairs samples was completed on November 6, right after the Caso Chiuso conference and before any defense consultants were apprised of the opportunity to observe the testing. Stefanoni calls Mignini with the results. What was said?

Almost all of the apparent blood stains are TMB+. Most of them have detectable amounts of human DNA, and some of them have sufficient amounts of DNA that they were run through the profiling process (i.e., the mattress pad, pillowcase and lightswitch). Logically, all of these samples would have come from the cut on Rudy's hand.

There was no effort to check the "Rudy blood" profiles against the profiles of the guys downstairs, because at this point, those guys all had alibis and Knox and Sollecito were famously sitting in jail.

But, at this time, they did have a Rudy DNA sample, that being the sample taken from the vaginal swab. It would have been known, not only that the "Rudy blood" from downstairs matched the swab, but also, that those samples did not match Knox and Sollecito. So, they had the wrong people, but unfortunately had already had via illegal interrogation extracted a false statement from Knox.

Come November 8--the detention hearing--neither the vaginal swab nor the downstairs testing are mentioned to Matteini. But, a staged break in is proposed, in order to sustain the illusion that a keyholder (Knox) must have been the perpetrator. What would have been the effect on the Matteini decision if it was disclosed that i) some other guy's DNA was detected on the vaginal swab, and ii) that guy's DNA matched up with blood spots downstairs? Answer: the natural conclusion would have been that this other guy was the perp.

By the time Stefanoni produces her report, all of the results of downstairs testing is suppressed under the guise of being "cat blood" despite the fact that no cat-blood testing method or results are known, and there was definitely human DNA that was detected and profiled. This is where I think that Stefanoni has strayed into flat out lying. The lie was propagated to avoid the charge of suppressing exculpatory evidence during the Matteini hearing and subsequently, and to preserve the illusion that the break in was staged.

IMO, this active deception makes it much more likely that the knife blade sample was planted.

 

[Numbers]

So, how did the cat's blood myth start?

My theory so far is that the cops initially wanted to pin the murder on one of the guys downstairs. That's why they rushed samples from downstairs (and not upstairs) to Rome and through testing on November 5-6. The focus on the guys downstairs may have led them to conclude that the break-in was staged.

The testing of the downstairs samples was completed on November 6, right after the Caso Chiuso conference and before any defense consultants were apprised of the opportunity to observe the testing. Stefanoni calls Mignini with the results. What was said?

Almost all of the apparent blood stains are TMB+. Most of them have detectable amounts of human DNA, and some of them have sufficient amounts of DNA that they were run through the profiling process (i.e., the mattress pad, pillowcase and lightswitch). Logically, all of these samples would have come from the cut on Rudy's hand.

There was no effort to check the "Rudy blood" profiles against the profiles of the guys downstairs, because at this point, those guys all had alibis and Knox and Sollecito were famously sitting in jail.

But, at this time, they did have a Rudy DNA sample, that being the sample taken from the vaginal swab. It would have been known, not only that the "Rudy blood" from downstairs matched the swab, but also, that those samples did not match Knox and Sollecito. So, they had the wrong people, but unfortunately had already had via illegal interrogation extracted a false statement from Knox.

Come November 8--the detention hearing--neither the vaginal swab nor the downstairs testing are mentioned to Matteini. But, a staged break in is proposed, in order to sustain the illusion that a keyholder (Knox) must have been the perpetrator. What would have been the effect on the Matteini decision if it was disclosed that i) some other guy's DNA was detected on the vaginal swab, and ii) that guy's DNA matched up with blood spots downstairs? Answer: the natural conclusion would have been that this other guy was the perp.
By the time Stefanoni produces her report, all of the results of downstairs testing is suppressed under the guise of being "cat blood" despite the fact that no cat-blood testing method or results are known, and there was definitely human DNA that was detected and profiled. This is where I think that Stefanoni has strayed into flat out lying. The lie was propagated to avoid the charge of suppressing exculpatory evidence during the Matteini hearing and subsequently, and to preserve the illusion that the break in was staged.

IMO, this active deception makes it much more likely that the knife blade sample was planted.

Diocletus,

Your analysis seems highly plausible to me.
Regarding the highlighted sentence: Very true, certainly outside of Italy.

Lab Tech Stefanoni also lied about there never being contamination in her lab. Contamination was evident in the records she did turn over to the defense.

Intentional storage of the bra clasp within a sealed tube containing extraction fluid, resulting in certain degradation of the DNA on the clasps, thus preventing any retesting while the trial stages continue: that is absolute proof of bad faith by the forensic police and prosecution, IMO.

Refusal to provide the best evidence documenting the results of the DNA profiling - that is, the electronic data files, which have the potential to show contamination at the LCN level, not necessarily observable in the paper profiles, is another example of bad faith by the forensic police and prosecution.

 

[Diocletus]

Diocletus,

Your analysis seems highly plausible to me.
Regarding the highlighted sentence: Very true, certainly outside of Italy.

Lab Tech Stefanoni also lied about there never being contamination in her lab. Contamination was evident in the records she did turn over to the defense.

Intentional storage of the bra clasp within a sealed tube containing extraction fluid, resulting in certain degradation of the DNA on the clasps, thus preventing any retesting while the trial stages continue: that is absolute proof of bad faith by the forensic police and prosecution, IMO.

Refusal to provide the best evidence documenting the results of the DNA profiling - that is, the electronic data files, which have the potential to show contamination at the LCN level, not necessarily observable in the paper profiles, is another example of bad faith by the forensic police and prosecution.

In a nutshell, the Matteini hearing was rigged to avoid any implication that a stranger was involved in the crime (as rapist or burglar), even though the prosecution knew for a fact that a stranger was involved in the crime. Knox and Sollecito had no effective access to counsel and no access to the evidence that the prosecution elected not to disclose to them, even though this hearing was used to deprive them of their freedom.

The EDFs of the suppressed profiles are likely the only way to prove this now.

 

[Desert Fox]

Not always good advice actually. When I hear ‘hooves’ in this case I think neither zebra’s nor horses but donkeys.
Donkeys going round in circles.

The thing is that you are n what is still a skeptical board. Stranger rape and murders while uncommon are nothing unknown. The crime which Amanda and Raff are accused of (as best I can tell with the shifting arguments of how they are convicted) is of a crime that is effectively unknown.

 

[ericparoissien]

The crime which Amanda and Raff are accused of (as best I can tell with the shifting arguments of how they are convicted) is of a crime that is effectively unknown.

Having only read a hundred or two hundred hours on this forum, I don't know if I'm repeating an argument that has already been proposed here. That is:
Given three persons on the crime scene, AK, RS, RG;
seeing that Guede is taken for granted as the perpetrator (because he has a function of sin absorber/purifier of the two others);
the task would be easier to exonerate him with all the tools used to exonerate the two others.
How i see Rudy Guede: Perfectly Italian, never considered as such, his color would not be put forth but some would say French is his mother tongue rather. The usual Italian family cooperation system that we see so efficient for RS is almost inexistent for RG.
Guede has a very low social self-confidence. A stranger in his own land.
Meaning, with a tiny fraction of the energy used to exonerate the two others it would have been easy to prove that he tried to help Meredith, got bloodied in the process, saw a bit more than he admits to, failed to assist the victim, got soft in the knees, ran, then of course (naturally), was threatened if he ever spoke plainly about what he saw.
In the Youtube link Machiavelli offered on RG's testimony, it's almost as if he said to the judge, "i never named them, you did and i didn't deny it." He won't assertively point the finger at AK and RS but he won't absolve them either.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

substrate controls

Diocletian,

Great post. The two minor reservations I have are these: There should have been substrate controls taken near the bloodstain. A substrate control in this case would be to swab near the stain and check for DNA. If they had been run and come up negative, then we could be more certain that the DNA that was found in the stain is truly associated with it. If the DNA came back as mixed DNA, then the same caveat that applies in the Adam Scott case (discussed by Peter Gill) applies here, namely that mixed DNA is not the same thing as mixed blood. Those two points noted, I think that finding either Meredith's blood or Guede's blood downstairs would be very damaging to the PG narrative. I wish I had a nickel for every time I read that Guede's footprints go straight out the door (to take one minor example).

 

[lonepinealex]

Having only read a hundred or two hundred hours on this forum, I don't know if I'm repeating an argument that has already been proposed here. That is:
Given three persons on the crime scene, AK, RS, RG;
seeing that Guede is taken for granted as the perpetrator (because he has a function of sin absorber/purifier of the two others);
the task would be easier to exonerate him with all the tools used to exonerate the two others.
How i see Rudy Guede: Perfectly Italian, never considered as such, his color would not be put forth but some would say French is his mother tongue rather. The usual Italian family cooperation system that we see so efficient for RS is almost inexistent for RG.
Guede has a very low social self-confidence. A stranger in his own land.
Meaning, with a tiny fraction of the energy used to exonerate the two others it would have been easy to prove that he tried to help Meredith, got bloodied in the process, saw a bit more than he admits to, failed to assist the victim, got soft in the knees, ran, then of course (naturally), was threatened if he ever spoke plainly about what he saw.
In the Youtube link Machiavelli offered on RG's testimony, it's almost as if he said to the judge, "i never named them, you did and i didn't deny it." He won't assertively point the finger at AK and RS but he won't absolve them either.

But why would you want to exonerate Guede? Have I misunderstood something here? Sorry if so...

 

[acbytesla]

Having only read a hundred or two hundred hours on this forum, I don't know if I'm repeating an argument that has already been proposed here. That is:
Given three persons on the crime scene, AK, RS, RG;
seeing that Guede is taken for granted as the perpetrator (because he has a function of sin absorber/purifier of the two others);
the task would be easier to exonerate him with all the tools used to exonerate the two others.
How i see Rudy Guede: Perfectly Italian, never considered as such, his color would not be put forth but some would say French is his mother tongue rather. The usual Italian family cooperation system that we see so efficient for RS is almost inexistent for RG.
Guede has a very low social self-confidence. A stranger in his own land.
Meaning, with a tiny fraction of the energy used to exonerate the two others it would have been easy to prove that he tried to help Meredith, got bloodied in the process, saw a bit more than he admits to, failed to assist the victim, got soft in the knees, ran, then of course (naturally), was threatened if he ever spoke plainly about what he saw.
In the Youtube link Machiavelli offered on RG's testimony, it's almost as if he said to the judge, "i never named them, you did and i didn't deny it." He won't assertively point the finger at AK and RS but he won't absolve them either.

There are countless problems with this idea. There is essentially no evidence on the other two. Rudy leaves his DNA in Meredith's purse and her vagina. He has actually lived in Perugia much longer than the other two. There is the evidence of his break-ins. Rudy felt so bad that he went dancing, never called anyone for help and then fled the country. These ar classic signs of guilt.

 

[Desert Fox]

There are countless problems with this idea. There is essentially no evidence on the other two. Rudy leaves his DNA in Meredith's purse and her vagina. He has actually lived in Perugia much longer than the other two. There is the evidence of his break-ins. Rudy felt so bad that he went dancing, never called anyone for help and then fled the country. These ar classic signs of guilt.

Even if we completely discount the DNA evidence, the bloody fingerprint / hand print puts him at the scene. There was no fingerprints or hand prints of Amanda and Raff in Meredeth's bedroom.

 

[platonov]

It's very nuanced !!

But why would you want to exonerate Guede? Have I misunderstood something here? Sorry if so...

Obviously - ericp doesn’t know RG is a black African.
& he has failed to understand that a pweety white American and her unidirectional alibi could ever ever be guilty of murder.
That’s the kind of thing blacks/drifters do.

Golly!

I am beginning to think that ericp has missed the whole thrust of the groupie argument.










Or perhaps not.

 

[Desert Fox]

Obviously - ericp doesn’t know RG is a black African.
& he has failed to understand that a pweety white American and her unidirectional alibi could ever ever be guilty of murder.
That’s the kind of thing blacks/drifters do.

Golly!

I am beginning to think that ericp has missed the whole thrust of the groupie argument.

Or perhaps not.

You are stating that we are all being racist here. . . .Anybody who believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent while believing that Rudy Guede is guilty?
Funny think is that you are being racist arguing that Rudy Guede is so easily lead around by the (so you claim) white witch Amanda Knox.

Simple fact is that we have bloody hand prints and shoe prints from Rudy Guede at the murder scene as well undisputed DNA evidence of him. You do not have that with either Amanda or Raff.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

A tale of two mountains

Simple fact is that we have bloody hand prints and shoe prints from Rudy Guede at the murder scene as well undisputed DNA evidence of him. You do not have that with either Amanda or Raff.

Guede also has wounds on his hands, and Professor Vinci argued that these are knife wounds. His fleeing the country is another indicator. I'd say that there is at least twice the evidence needed to convict him BARD, possible three times. With respect to Amanda and Raffaele there is a mountain of missing evidence.

 

[Desert Fox]

Guede also has wounds on his hands, and Professor Vinci argued that these are knife wounds. His fleeing the country is another indicator. I'd say that there is at least twice the evidence needed to convict him BARD, possible three times. With respect to Amanda and Raffaele there is a mountain of missing evidence.

I wonder if I would be accused of being a racist for stating that Omar Ballard murdered Michelle Moore-Bosko as well?