Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[MichaelB]

I noticed the village idiot said up thread that the size of the 2nd toe in one of the luminol prints wasn't part of the trial. Really?

Professor Torre http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Professor-Torre-Testimony.pdf

It’s not a question of reading the literature, it’s clear that this foot of Amanda’s has the second toe let’s call it index of the foot to make ourselves more understandable, longer than the big toe. In the print the second toe is frankly shorter, in the luminol, both Amanda’s foot and its ink footprint have a long second toe, that print there with the Luminol has a short second toe I’d say there’s no doubt about it. I’m not particularly an expert on prints but if there’s one thing that jumps out when we know that the majority of people have a second toe longer than their big toe however a good number people have a shorter one I believe that it would not have been a bad idea to take the prints of the other young people that came to the house and that potentially walked on the floors with bare feet perhaps coming out of the shower that maybe had been washed with chlorine to clean it that could have left prints that were Luminol positive anywhere.

 

[Numbers]

Hi LJ and everyone else,
Have a look at these 2 photographs of the Crime Scene, found on the Web.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9264[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9265[/qimg]

Look at where Miss Kercher's foot is in comparison to the floor tile grout lines and her black underwear, seen in both photo's, ILE moved her body in between taking these 2 photo's.

I think this kinda proves your point LJ.

Or do you folks Italian pro-guilt folks think that Amanda and Raff were still staging the crime scene?

Heck,
I even remember seeing a photo of Meredith's nightstand, right next to her bed,
which is then seen in other photographs altered also, for her letters home are moved,
but are still near that half full glass of water...

Gotta go,
see ya next time,
RW


ETA:
Here is the photograph which shows
that the letters home from Meredith were moved in between photo's:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9317[/qimg]
Compare this to the photograph above which shows her nightstand + her letters home in the background.

In the 1st photo, the handle strap of the purse lies entirely on the bed.
In the 2nd photo, it overhangs the bed. I do not believe this is an effect of perspective.

For the letters/envelopes, the angle of the large envelope nearest the front is changed with respect to the others in the 2nd photo, and they all seem moved closer to the corner.

ETA: The purse itself appears to have been moved closer to the edge of the bed in/for the 2nd photo.

On http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/failed-sexual-assault-investigation/
there is a photo that shows Meredith's body in outline on the floor; also observable are the letters/envelopes on the nightstand. This photo is abou1t midway down in the series of photos/slides.

1. In the photo, the letters/envelopes are observable on the corner of the nightstand. The positions of the letters/envelopes on the corner have again been changed.

2. The position of Meredith's left leg seems to correspond with that in the 2nd photo that RW has posted.

3. The two police standing next to her body appear to be wearing street shoes/boots, not disposable booties. Meredith's blood is nearby. There would be a strong possibility of contamination of areas of the floor with Meredith's DNA from this improper police procedure. The police may also have tracked in soil, containing luminol-triggering substances, on their boots.

 

[Planigale]

Hi LJ and everyone else,
Have a look at these 2 photographs of the Crime Scene, found on the Web.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9264[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9265[/qimg]

Look at where Miss Kercher's foot is in comparison to the floor tile grout lines and her black underwear, seen in both photo's, ILE moved her body in between taking these 2 photo's.

I think this kinda proves your point LJ.

Or do you folks Italian pro-guilt folks think that Amanda and Raff were still staging the crime scene?

Heck,
I even remember seeing a photo of Meredith's nightstand, right next to her bed,
which is then seen in other photographs altered also, for her letters home are moved,
but are still near that half full glass of water...

Gotta go,
see ya next time,
RW


ETA:
Here is the photograph which shows
that the letters home from Meredith were moved in between photo's:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9317[/qimg]
Compare this to the photograph above which shows her nightstand + her letters home in the background.

FWIW I think the apparent change in position of the foot is one of perspective. I do agree other things have been moved e.g. the bag and papers. We know from the discovery of the bra hook that the photographs are sometimes staged. The bra hook was picked up then put down again and photographed as if in situ. This is pointless. You photograph stuff in situ not posed after discovery.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, I don't recall posting that. But I think I recall one or more posts where the police were quoted as stating that they had seen no need to get prints/DNA evidence from the hall side of the door and handle - so they didn't.

I'm pretty certain there's documentary evidence that the "crack" forensics team did not test the outer (i.e. hallway-facing) face of Kercher's bedroom door, since they didn't consider this relevant to the crime! Perhaps certain pro-guilt commentators should educate not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni on the subject of which parts of the cottage comprised the crime scene

In my opinion, had they tested the outer door face and handle properly, there's a high chance that they would have found Sollecito's DNA - in line with his claims to have tried opening then forcing the door at around midday on 2nd November. I believe that this is probably the source of Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp hook via tertiary transfer (Sollecito-to-door, door-to-CSI, CSI-to-bra). I believe that this transfer occurred either a) when the clasp was originally found on 2-5 Nov, b) during the time the clasp was moved around the floor in a pile of dust and debris during November and December, or c) when the clasp was "rediscovered" in mid-December and passed round the "crack" team like some sort of bizarre parlour game.

 

[Samson]

I'm pretty certain there's documentary evidence that the "crack" forensics team did not test the outer (i.e. hallway-facing) face of Kercher's bedroom door, since they didn't consider this relevant to the crime! Perhaps certain pro-guilt commentators should educate not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni on the subject of which parts of the cottage comprised the crime scene

In my opinion, had they tested the outer door face and handle properly, there's a high chance that they would have found Sollecito's DNA - in line with his claims to have tried opening then forcing the door at around midday on 2nd November. I believe that this is probably the source of Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp hook via tertiary transfer (Sollecito-to-door, door-to-CSI, CSI-to-bra). I believe that this transfer occurred either a) when the clasp was originally found on 2-5 Nov, b) during the time the clasp was moved around the floor in a pile of dust and debris during November and December, or c) when the clasp was "rediscovered" in mid-December and passed round the "crack" team like some sort of bizarre parlour game.

The secondary consideration is that pro guilt people denigrate Sollecito for not breaking down the door.
This is entirely reasonable because he could not conceivably imagine a crime scene on the other side, but when the boy downstairs was instructed by the police (of any brand) to break down the door, he had full licence to engage in a brand of vandelism. Sollecito most assuredly did not, and would naturally be far less committed to an outcome.

 

[LondonJohn]

FWIW I think the apparent change in position of the foot is one of perspective. I do agree other things have been moved e.g. the bag and papers. We know from the discovery of the bra hook that the photographs are sometimes staged. The bra hook was picked up then put down again and photographed as if in situ. This is pointless. You photograph stuff in situ not posed after discovery.

I agree - I think this is an issue of perspective. Kercher's foot was angled upwards into the air, and I think it's this factor that makes things look superficially different between the two photos.

But I still think it's far from unlikely that things were changed by the police and other first-responders before photos were taken. For instance, it's a certainty that the duvet would have been lifted to establish that Kercher was dead, and the position of the body and/or the pillow may have been altered at that point.

More likely though, in my view, is the probability that Guede altered the position of the body just before he left. It appears that Kercher's body was lying on part of the duvet that also was covering her body at discovery. To me, it looks very possible that Guede would have had to pull the duvet partially out from under the body (or move the body itself) in order to free up enough of the duvet to enable him to cover the body with it. And if that's true, then this would probably have significantly altered the relative position of the body and the pillow.

In my view, it's highly probable that the left side of the pillow was not under the body in the period just after the murder. That's how and why Guede stepped repeatedly onto it, as he manoeuvred around the body and the edge of the bed. Then, in his final act (probably the act of covering the body with the duvet), he moved the body such that it now covered that section of the pillow.

 

[Kauffer]

No, I don't recall posting that. But I think I recall one or more posts where the police were quoted as stating that they had seen no need to get prints/DNA evidence from the hall side of the door and handle - so they didn't.

ETA: I would appreciate other opinions on what RW's photos show. Can anyone make a credible case that these differences are merely results of changes in perspective?

There has clearly been an alteration of Ms Kercher's foot - slightly. There has clearly been an alteration of the position of the bag -also, the evidence marker is flat on the bed in one photo and upright in the other. I do not believe the photos of the bedside cabinet/nightstand show any alteration, however.

So, there has definitely been an alteration of the sccene. How significant is it? I doubt much. But it's evidence of sloppiness and inaccuracy. We have plenty of evidence of that from the CSIs in this case.

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm pretty certain there's documentary evidence that the "crack" forensics team did not test the outer (i.e. hallway-facing) face of Kercher's bedroom door, since they didn't consider this relevant to the crime! Perhaps certain pro-guilt commentators should educate not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni on the subject of which parts of the cottage comprised the crime scene

In my opinion, had they tested the outer door face and handle properly, there's a high chance that they would have found Sollecito's DNA - in line with his claims to have tried opening then forcing the door at around midday on 2nd November. I believe that this is probably the source of Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp hook via tertiary transfer (Sollecito-to-door, door-to-CSI, CSI-to-bra). I believe that this transfer occurred either a) when the clasp was originally found on 2-5 Nov, b) during the time the clasp was moved around the floor in a pile of dust and debris during November and December, or c) when the clasp was "rediscovered" in mid-December and passed round the "crack" team like some sort of bizarre parlour game.

Your belief may well be a perfectly reasonable one, LJ, but it should be seen as an unnecessary concession to the prosecution. The defence's primary argument should be that there is no proper evidence of the presence of Sollecito's DNA on the clasp aside from Stefanoni's word, since she destroyed the sample. Since she is at best incompetent (using Nencini's strict test, all her evidence must go out the window) and at worst corrupt her word cannot be enough even if it were sensible to suggest the unverified word of a truthful witness would be, which I doubt.

I realise this argument is not available in Italy unless one is willing to go to prison for making it but we can still make it.

 

[carbonjam72]

No, I don't recall posting that. But I think I recall one or more posts where the police were quoted as stating that they had seen no need to get prints/DNA evidence from the hall side of the door and handle - so they didn't.
ETA: I would appreciate other opinions on what RW's photos show. Can anyone make a credible case that these differences are merely results of changes in perspective?

I'm remember hearing one of the lead detectives, I'm not sure which, being asked if they had tested the outside door handle. I think this was in the BBC4 radio interview, in response to Dr Peter Gill saying Sollecito had touched the outside door, and that the latex gloves the police used but didn't change were a high risk for transporting DNA. The police detective said something like, "no, we tested the inside door handle, but not the outside. The crime occurred inside the room, why would we test the outside door handle?".

Second point, I'm wondering about a point I think Planingale had raised, that post mortem, tendons and/or cartilidge or other tissue tends to contract as rigor mortis sets in. Could that explain the change in position of the foot angle?

The other observations of objects moving in their positions are obviously another story. But I would be willing to accept those types of extraneous movements as due to many poorly trained lab techs, in bulbous white 'casper the ghost suits' (or 'pillsbury dough boy' if you prefer), crammed into a tiny space, trampling through a crime scene with wet blood in unchanged booties, and so on.

Not exactly the "A-team" they sent in. But neither do I buy that they had enough central control and coordination to manipulate the scene in a deliberate way.

I think Mignini controls the narrative by omitting or suppressing evidence, less so then by physical alteration or planting. just mho.

Again, props to RBWL for outstanding research and attention to visual detail. Must come from spotting waves on the far horizons.

 

[Machiavelli]

I noticed the village idiot said up thread that the size of the 2nd toe in one of the luminol prints wasn't part of the trial. Really?

(...)

I suggest avoid name callings, which only highlights your weakness, and I repeat the concept: Rinaldi was not questioned about it. There was no defence objection to his testimony about the second toe and no question was asked to him. The detail lacks cross-examination, Rinaldi was not challenged about it, this lack of debate contributes to make the argument inherently weak.

 

[Machiavelli]

The secondary consideration is that pro guilt people denigrate Sollecito for not breaking down the door.
This is entirely reasonable because he could not conceivably imagine a crime scene on the other side, but when the boy downstairs was instructed by the police (of any brand) to break down the door, he had full licence to engage in a brand of vandelism. Sollecito most assuredly did not, and would naturally be far less committed to an outcome.

It's not that we denigrate him. It's that we don't believe him; since it's not credible. It makes no sense to crack the door without opening it, as he claims he did, and it is unrealistic that he failed to open it if he wanted to (and that ge cracked the door if he did not mean to break it down). It also makes little sense to put together an attempt to break the door and the fact that Knox downplayed the importance of the locked door: it's inconsistent; or to put it together with the fact that they had waited at less another 15 minutes before calling the police after Filomena told them to do so immediately: if they felt that opening the door was so urgent to the point of attempting to break it down, this is also inconsistent.

 

[carbonjam72]

Your belief may well be a perfectly reasonable one, LJ, but it should be seen as an unnecessary concession to the prosecution. The defence's primary argument should be that there is no proper evidence of the presence of Sollecito's DNA on the clasp aside from Stefanoni's word, since she destroyed the sample. Since she is at best incompetent (using Nencini's strict test, all her evidence must go out the window) and at worst corrupt her word cannot be enough even if it were sensible to suggest the unverified word of a truthful witness would be, which I doubt.

I realise this argument is not available in Italy unless one is willing to go to prison for making it but we can still make it.

Just responding here, but others have commented on this issue of the bra clasp DNA showing Sollecito partial profile.

There are essentially two branches of possible routes of contamination that I'm seeing.

First is the door handle, via latex gloves, to the bra clasp by the forensic police. Consistent with the mix of 2-4 extra male profiles on the clasp, and argued as being highly credible by Dr Peter Gill.

Second possibility is more of Stef's magic in the lab. And am I wrong, or hasn't Diocletus and others pointed out that there are fairly clear indications from the lab results that there were problems in particular with the bra clasp (and knife blade) runs.

Since the knife blade is pretty clearly a 'lab job', I'm inclined to believe the bra clasp is also a lab technique from Stef.

DNA experts can weigh in more precisely, but wasn't it the case that Stef subjected only the critical results to a higher, and bogus, level of extreme detection, as though she were expecting to find the result she found, in just those samples, but did not pursue the same obsessive technique's in other samples? I know I'm not getting this right.

But I vote for Stef rigging the results, rather than it just being the police got lucky in finding Raf's transfer of DNA from latex gloves, in quantities of what 4-5 skin cells?

From the video, as I think LJ pointed out, its as though the police put the clasp under the rug, so they could film themselves finding it. Then to make a show of passing it around, and placing it back down to again take photos of it. Weren't they also video'd in the kitchen reviewing the crime scene video just before they went in and found it. Weren't they looking for the bra clasp in advance when they went back in?

And lo and behold they get a favorable DNA result on the bra clasp, and its just luck? I do so hate to disagree with Dr Gill, but DNA bra clasp result just doesn't pass the "smell test", imho.

 

[carbonjam72]

Hi CarbonJam72,
I feel that the 13 unattributed fingerprints,
which passed the tests as Frank Sfarzo noted in that posting I shared recently,
might have something to do with the case we discuss.
BUT we do not know whose they are.

We know that ILE, under PM Mignini,
were hell bent to have Raff and Amanda participate in Meredith's murder at all costs, it seems.

How do you just substitute 1 guy, a family man, a business owner,
with another guy, who does not even have a job or a girlfriend?
Just because he is black.
Come on.

And then not change the motive?

Sex Game Gone Wrong?

The prints might mean something, ILE never found out who they belonged to.
I'd like to see them tested again, though I bet that'll never happen.

Heck,
2 unattributed fingerprints are on Meredith's door.
Didn't I read a short while ago that her door wasn't tested completely?
When I have a free moment, I'll dig up and re-read that post, wasn't it from Numbers?

Are they from the postal police?
Or the guy who broke down her door?
Or the 2 paramedics who arrived soon after?
Or someone else who mighta been of a more violent nature than "Poor Rudy".

And it also seems some unattributed prints are on a womans panty drawer.
In a Sex Game Gone Wrong, might these mean something?
Possibly.

I don't know,
but I keep it in mind as I read about this case we discuss...
See ya, RW

Hey RW,

I'm still not clear on your position with respect to these fingerprints.

Is it your belief that the prints are sufficiently clear to be read, but that the prints don't match any known people? And that this is why the prints are unattributed?

OR, is it your belief that the prints are smudgy and/or UNreadable. And that the prints are NOT attributed to anyone BECAUSE they cannot be read?

If it's the former, that suggests they were left by unknown people. However, we still would not know WHEN the prints were left by unknown people.

If the latter, we still don't know when the prints were left. But it also might be people who lived in the house, not unknown people who had no legitimate reason to be in the house.

So it makes a big difference which view you support.

Speculation is certainly possible, but it conflicts with so much other data pointing to Guede as the lone perp. That's my read on it.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is breathtakingly deceitful. The shoe prints are Guede's. The identification is clear. To whom were you going to suggest they belonged?

The shoeprints - which are all documented - are not Guede's and are not even in blood. They belong to at less two different kind of shoes. One is possibly an All-Star shoe and one belongs to maybe a Marrell shoe.

 

[carbonjam72]

Rudy alone

It's not that we denigrate him. It's that we don't believe him; since it's non credible. It makes no sense to crack the door without opening it, as he claims he did, and it is unrealistic that he failed to open it if he wanted to. It als makes little sense that Knox downplayed the importance of the locked door, or that they had waited at less another 15 minutes before calling the police after Filomena told them to do so immediately, if they felt that opening the door was so urgent to the point of attempting to break it down.

BUMPING AGAIN:

Why couldn't Rudy just have done it alone?

Originally Posted by Machiavelli
But basically nothing is coherent in the lone wolf scenario.

Mach, can you explain what you mean with this?

What evidence do you believe is inconsistent with Rudy Guede having killed Meredith Kercher all by himself?

It certainly would explain why there are only Rudy's foot prints in meredith's blood in the room where she was killed.

It would explain why only Rudy's DNA, finger prints and other biological traces were found in Meredith's room, and no one else ( at least in any meaningful quantity, or multiple places in the bedroom).

And it would be consistent with Rudy's style of breaking and entry, finding a window with a metal grating, and using it as a ladder to enter a second floor window - after having thrown a rock through it to test if anyone was there.

 

[carbonjam72]

Another Bump for MACH:

Originally Posted by Bill Williams
Machiavelli has not responded to the larger issue here: why is it that Machiavelli thinks that courts like Massei's and Nencini's, the convicting courts, need help with these additional factoids?

It's not just whether or not Machiavelli is inventing them out of thin air.... why isn't Machiavelli simply making reference to the cases for guilt which are supposed to be so convincing in those motivations reports?

Why does Machiavelli think they need this kind of help?

I have asked repeatedly for Mach, or any other pro-guilt posters, to take any issue they like, and compare how Judge Hellman handled it, to that of any other judicial findings. I think the difference is night and day.

I don't blame them for avoiding Hellman, if their fear is simply getting caught out and having to admit they are wrong.

What I don't understand is why anyone would be afraid to be wrong? I mean really, are they all hoping for a slice of Raf's inheritance? I don't get the psychology of the pro-guilt people, I truly do not get it.

 

[Machiavelli]

BUMPING AGAIN:

Why couldn't Rudy just have done it alone?



Mach, can you explain what you mean with this?

What evidence do you believe is inconsistent with Rudy Guede having killed Meredith Kercher all by himself?

(..).

But I explained a lot by now. All of it. Just every piece of evidence becomes disconnected from any logical thread or probable explanation. A number of findings become unexplained or contrary to the evidence. And moreover you would nerd to inject a ludicrous number of unsupported postulates, of a kind that would require a burden of proof.

 

[Machiavelli]

Another Bump for MACH:



I have asked repeatedly for Mach, or any other pro-guilt posters, to take any issue they like, and compare how Judge Hellman handled it, to that of any other judicial findings. I think the difference is night and day.

I don't blame them for avoiding Hellman, if their fear is simply getting caught out and having to admit they are wrong.

What I don't understand is why anyone would be afraid to be wrong? I mean really, are they all hoping for a slice of Raf's inheritance? I don't get the psychology of the pro-guilt people, I truly do not get it.

I made so many points about Hellmann in the past, as long as the Hellmann verdict still existed. You would only need to make a search. Or you may instead start by reading my summary of the Supreme Court ruling of annullmant of Hellmann's verdict which I posted last year on TJMK. Several of my points were the same of the SC ones. I have expressed my utmost contempt for the dishonesty of the Hellmann verdict in the most unequivocal terms.

 

[Kauffer]

The shoeprints - which are all documented - are not Guede's and are not even in blood. They belong to at less two different kind of shoes. One is possibly an All-Star shoe and one belongs to maybe a Marrell shoe.

What on earth are you talking about? Which shoeprints? Where?

 

[Desert Fox]

But I explained a lot by now. All of it. Just every piece of evidence becomes disconnected from any logical thread or probable explanation. A number of findings become unexplained or contrary to the evidence. And moreover you would nerd to inject a ludicrous number of unsupported postulates, of a kind that would require a burden of proof.

As far as I have seen, you have presented nothing which contradicts a single assailant. If you think you can demonstrate that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito are involved, starting from the neutral "I don't know position." As I wrote previously, this is actually moving the goalpost in your direction. Should start with innocent and guilt has to be proven from there.

In any event, there are going to be items which cannot be explained. Just listening to a talk about the murder of President Kennedy. While the main evidence is that Oswald did it alone, there are always unexplained items. There are always going to be "I don't know" items about the murder of Meredeth as well. The solid case is that Guede did it alone however.