Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

They are not telling about their indecision. They are telling a non believeable and inconsistent story. Knox reports Sollecito failed to break down the door. Let's say "liars"...

Your response seems to be some sort of weird jumping to conclusions which I have a hard time even understanding.

 

[Dan O.]

Who told you I believe Battistelli?
I don't know which version is correct.



I absolutely never expressed a position of certainty on Battistelli's actions.
But yes, this has nothing to do with Knox's delay calling the police.

This is your claim, Machiavelli. An honest debator would back it up with a detailed timeline showing what events were occurring. But I know you won't do this. You will run from this argument like you run from every other argument when it gets down to presenting facts. Your faciscious claims are shallow and cannot be supported. Now we will watch you scamper off and hide behind your cloak of "all the other evidence".

 

[Bill Williams]

Who told you I believe Battistelli?
I don't know which version is correct.



I absolutely never expressed a position of certainty on Battistelli's actions.
But yes, this has nothing to do with Knox's delay calling the police.

So then you hold it as possible that Battistelli could have inadvertently contaminated the crime scene by walking into Meredith's room? Right over the area were moments before Raffaele had been trying to open the door.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

Now that I have had a chance to view these photos, I will say that the difference in the apparent foot position is entirely due to parallax. The foot points up at an angle, pointing almost directly at the camera in the second photo. You can detect this angle in the first photo by comparing the size of the shadow cast by the ankle compared to the shadow cast by the big toe. Taking into consideration that the foot is angled up, the positions appear identical in the two photos.

If necessary, I could offer a demonstration with a 3D mockup of that part of the scene as I had dome with the lamp earlier. Hopefully this won't be necessary as I have more important work to do when I get on the big computer.

 

[Bill Williams]

It seems completely irrelevant to me.

I know it does. It is because you are confirmation biased against Knox.

If Ficarra made the first mention of that SMS, then she wss the one who brought Lumumba's name into the room. There was no "spontaneous" mention of him by Knox.

 

[Dan O.]

This happens when you tell things that are not credible, intrinsically inconsistent, ambiguous or changing.

Then don't do that.

 

[Numbers]

The police were tampering with the evidence in unknown ways even as they were photographing the crime scene.

I will modify the above statement since "tamper" may imply that the police had negative intentions in making all the apparent alterations. When police mishandle evidence, they may violate the rights of a defendant.

The police were tampering with and/or carelessly and arbitrarily altering the evidence in unknown ways even as they were photographing the crime scene.

A most striking and profound violation of defendant's rights in the police mishandling of evidence was demonstrated in the collection of the bra clasp, where their methods were likely to contaminate the sample with respect to any DNA on its surface.

 

[Machiavelli]

So then you hold it as possible that Battistelli could have inadvertently contaminated the crime scene by walking into Meredith's room? Right over the area were moments before Raffaele had been trying to open the door.

What do you mean here by "contaminate"?
In advance, I say that contamination meant as a generic concept is something with no implication.

 

[Kauffer]

What do you mean here by "contaminate"?
In advance, I say that contamination meant as a generic concept is something with no implication.

This is a little obtuse. The contention is that it is possible that the police officer transferred Mr Sollecito's DNA from around the door into Ms Kercher's room. You do understand or at least are aware of the problem of contamination via transfer, yes?

 

[Machiavelli]

I have read studies which indicate that people will often not respond in such situation, it seems to be a human thing not an American. Even if such things are in the books, I suspect that hey are not enforced except selectively.

All suggestions are that the postal police themselves were extremely reluctant to respond. They should have been charged with a crime by the way you are arguing.

Knox claims she waited hours before giving alarm to the police and to Raffaele. She lied to Filomena about the place where she was. She did not answer Filomena's calls. She did not tell the truth about calling Metedith. She rang Meredith only for five and three seconds, and didn't even call her on her second phone eve after she had just told Filomena she would do that. She said she had become worried and told Filomena she would call for Raffaele's help, but in fact she didn't tell him and instead she waited further, then she said she was not sure whether there was something to worry about.
Those are the situations where you would see if someone is a reliable person or not. I wouldn't be happy of having a friend who is incapable to do something consistent with being concerned for a person.
By in fact Knox's story is also not credible.
Then when Knox goes to Sollecito's house, and when they come back home again, Amanda shows concern for carrying a useless mop to clean up only a little of water that was there from the day before (?didn't dry?) even if there were rags of all needed kinds in Sollecito's apartment.
When she enters her own apartment - she tells - she was only worried to check if someone had stolen her computer, even if she had been on her room for a while to change herself and even if she stated that she had come to a conclusion that nothing had been stolen from the house since Filomena's laptop was there.
Sollecito says in advance that nothing has been stolen and repeats it, Knox contradicts herself and Filomena about the locked door.
If that was not enough, she tells Filomena she would call the police immediately, but in fact they only call the police at 12:54.
These are only son of the things one notices just from the start. Only some of them and only about how the thing starts.
Any normal person with no agenda would notice those contradictions.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is a little obtuse. The contention is that it is possible that the police officer transferred Mr Sollecito's DNA from around the door into Ms Kercher's room. You do understand or at least are aware of the problem of contamination via transfer, yes?

1. Is there evidence of a significant source of Sollecito's contamination around the door (answer: No. You may speculate about the presence of a microscopic amount, still unproven and his DNA was absent from all floor samples).
2. How likely secondary or tertiary transfer is, from microscopic sources on a specific location?
3. Transfer where? The "room" has many locations. And many were checked.
4. How the DNA would stick on the bra clasp after departing from those imaginary spots, also require speculation and probability assessment.

Conclusion: contamination from Sollecito's DNA is an unsupported postulate.

 

[Desert Fox]

Knox claims she waited hours before giving alarm to the police and to Raffaele. She lied to Filomena about the place where she was. She did not answer Filomena's calls. She did not tell the truth about calling Metedith. She rang Meredith only for five and three seconds, and didn't even call her on her second phone eve after she had just told Filomena she would do that. She said she had become worried and told Filomena she would call for Raffaele's help, but in fact she didn't tell him and instead she waited further, then she said she was not sure whether there was something to worry about.
Those are the situations where you would see if someone is a reliable person or not. I wouldn't be happy of having a friend who is incapable to do something consistent with being concerned for a person.
By in fact Knox's story is also not credible.
Then when Knox goes to Sollecito's house, and when they come back home again, Amanda shows concern for carrying a useless mop to clean up only a little of water that was there from the day before (?didn't dry?) even if there were rags of all needed kinds in Sollecito's apartment.
When she enters her own apartment - she tells - she was only worried to check if someone had stolen her computer, even if she had been on her room for a while to change herself and even if she stated that she had come to a conclusion that nothing had been stolen from the house since Filomena's laptop was there.
Sollecito says in advance that nothing has been stolen and repeats it, Knox contradicts herself and Filomena about the locked door.
If that was not enough, she tells Filomena she would call the police immediately, but in fact they only call the police at 12:54.
These are only son of the things one notices just from the start. Only some of them and only about how the thing starts.
Any normal person with no agenda would notice those contradictions.

You are making a horrid mistake here, you are spinning everything somebody is doing or saying under stress and trying to make something of it. As well, even right after an event, memories of what somebody did and when is always confused. To be blunt, that is just a bad idea.

I believe the phone calls have been discussed by others and my understanding is that only actual connection time is included in the time. If I connect to voice mail and worried about somebody, I will likely hang up not leave a voice mail.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

fingerprints and DNA

1. Is there evidence of a significant source of Sollecito's contamination around the door (answer: No. You may speculate about the presence of a microscopic amount, still unproven and his DNA was absent from all floor samples).

Machiavelli,

Sollecito's fingerprints were one the door, and fingerprints contain DNA that sometimes can be typed.

 

[Dan O.]

...

Any normal person with no agenda would notice those contradictions.

Total bull crap, Machiavelli. Your conclusions are derived only from your bias towards guilt in deciding what to believe. It shows who you are and nothing else.

 

[Numbers]

Now that I have had a chance to view these photos, I will say that the difference in the apparent foot position is entirely due to parallax. The foot points up at an angle, pointing almost directly at the camera in the second photo. You can detect this angle in the first photo by comparing the size of the shadow cast by the ankle compared to the shadow cast by the big toe. Taking into consideration that the foot is angled up, the positions appear identical in the two photos.

If necessary, I could offer a demonstration with a 3D mockup of that part of the scene as I had dome with the lamp earlier. Hopefully this won't be necessary as I have more important work to do when I get on the big computer.

I now believe that the initial impression of a change in foot position in the first compared to the second photo is a kind of optical illusion. If one perceives the left edge of the left foot as resting directly on the floor, then the second photo would seem to show that it had been moved. But your explanation that this is really just an effect of the angles of view and parallax seems correct to me. There is no evidence in these two pictures that the foot and leg were moved.

 

[Welshman]

The issue of the actions Amanda and Raffaele prior to the discovery of the body has come under srutiny again. This is a part of my post from IIP which looks at the issue of what happened prior to Meredith's body being discovered :-

"If Amanda and Raffaele were guilty, they returned to the cottage the next day to phone the police to report a murder they committed which is a bizarre scenario. Taking this course of action poses numerous risks for Amanda and Raffaele :-

1) The haters, the Massei report and the prosecution argued the behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele was suspcious and not the behaviour of people who had innocently stumbled on a crime scene. Is this not exactly what Amanda and Raffaele would worry about if they returned to the cottage. Would they not worry they would do the wrong things which reveal that they know Meredith is dead.

2) The first people to enter the cottage and call the police will be the focus of attention by the police and will be questioned extensively. Would not Amanda and Raffaele wish to avoid contact with the police if possible and maintain a low profile? The evidence suggests Amanda and Raffaele became suspects precisely because they were the first people the police encountered when they arrived at the cottage.

3) Amanda and Raffaele would worry they will slip up and say the wrong things when being questioned by the police.

4) If Amanda and Raffaele had killed Meredith just the previous evening they are going to be in a tense and agitated state. Would they not worry this would become obvious to the police.


In view of the above, why did Amanda and Raffaele decide to return to the cottage and call the police to report a murder they have just committed? This raises the following questions :-

1) In view of the risks involved in returning to the cottage, is it credible that both Amanda and Raffaele would readily agree to return to the cottage considering the risks posed above. Surely one of them would feel that returning to the cottage would be a bad idea.

2) Whose idea was it to return to the cottage.

3) Did Amanda and Raffaele carry out a long debate about returning to the cottage and were the risks of returning to the cottage outlined above discussed. If there was a debage about returning to the cottage, how long did this debate last? When was it decided to return to the the cottage?

There are other factors which argue against Amanda and Raffaele returning to the cottage.

1) If Amanda and Raffaele had killed Meredith, they are going to be in a state of extreme panic and agitation. They would be pre-occcupied by many things; getting rid of their blood stained clothing, cleaning blood transfer in Raffaele's apartment and worry over things such as forensic traces of Amanda and Raffaele being found in the room, being caught on CCTV and being seen by witnesses. In view of this is it credible that Amanda and Raffaele would wish to call the police. Calling the police would complicate things further. The state of panic will be particularly severe if the murder was not pre-meditated and done in the hate of the moment.

2) If Amanda and Raffaele plan to return to the cottage and call the police, there are so many things to consider :-

What actions to take when returning to the cottage.
How do they appear like people who have innocently stumbled on a crime scene and not people who know that Meredith is dead?
What time should they go to the cottage?
When should they call the police?
What do they tell the police when they arrive?

It would it not be easier not to return to the cottage and avoid considering these questions. If Amanda and Raffaele were in a state of extreme panic and agitation, would they be able to think clearly about these issues.

3) If Amanda and Raffaele had killed Meredith, it is highly unlikely they would have slept much due to panic at having just killed someone, carrying out tasks such as staging the break in, disposing of bloody clothing, working our their alibis when the police question them and cleaning Raffaele's apartment of blood. Would they wish to return to the cottage the next morning in a state of sleep deprivation and exhausation and talk to the police? Is there not a danger that being tired and exhausted would appear suspicious to the police?

As mentioned previously it has been argued the behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele was not the behaviour of people who had innocently stumbled on a crime scene. If the behaviour of Amanda was wrong, how are the following explained

1) What exactly should Amanda and Raffaele have done when returning to the cottage? I raised this issue on the JREF forum and no one who believed Amanda and Raffaele were guilty answered my question. If the behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele was so suspicious why has no one given a detailed account of the actions an innocent Amanda and Raffaele should have taken?

2) If the behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele was suspicious when they arrived at the cottage prior to the discovery of Meredith's body, why did the police not make an issue of this during the interrogations? Amanda and Raffaele were never asked questions such as how could you shower in a bloody bathroom, why did an open door not alarm you, why did you not raise the alarm earlier?

3) The prosecution told numerous lies and some of these lies concern the period prior to the discovery of Meredith's body :-

* In court prosecutor Comodi lied in court saying that Amanda called her mother at 12.00 pm before anything had happened to cause concern. The call was actually made at 12.47 pm.
* The postal police lied about their time of arrival to give the impression Raffaele had called the caribineri after they arrived.
* The prosecution released a photo a of bloody bathroom without telling the bathroom had been sprayed with a chemical and this was not how the bathroom would appear to the naked eye.

If the behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele was so suspcious why did the prosecution have to resort to lying to make their behaviour appear suspicious?

If Amanda and Raffaele had killed Meredith and the plan was to return to the cottage and call the police, why did Amanda and Raffaele not leave the door to Meredith's room open? This is something I touched upon in my thread on suspcious behaviour. I will explain in more detail why a guilty Amanda and Raffaele may have chosen this choice. When Amanda goes into the cottage, she could tell the police that she saw Meredith's door was open and could see Meredith's body. Amanda could claim she went into Meredith's room to see if she was alive and found she was dead. A major advantage of this course of action was that Amanda entering Meredith's room would explain forensic traces in the room. Immediately finding Meredith's body would obviously give Amanda and Raffaele a reason to call the police straight away. If Amanda and Raffaele call the police straight away to say the have found a dead body, it would be difficult to see how their behaviour would be seen as suspicious. Amanda and Raffaele would not have to do things like ring Meredith's mobile, ring the other housemates, try to break down Meredith's door, phoning Raffaele's sister. Issues such as why did Amanda and Raffaele not raise the alarm earlier, the length of the phone calls to Meredith's phone, the sequence of phone calls, Amanda saying Meredith always locked her door and Raffaele not making enough of effort to break down the door which were used against Amanda and Raffaele would not have arisen."

 

[Planigale]

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.

The odd thing is that the native Italian speaking trainee lawyer whose room had been broken into who was 'in charge' of the flat instructed a foreigner with poor Italian to ring the emergency services (including the fire service according to Filament herself), rather than doing it herself. Why did Filomena not ring?

The odd thing is that the police did not break the door down. Why should it be expected of Sollecito to break down the door but not the police?

You appear to hold Knox to a higher standard than Filomena. You hold Sollecito to a higher standard than the police. do you not see the bias in this?

 

[Machiavelli]

The odd thing is that the native Italian speaking trainee lawyer whose room had been broken into who was 'in charge' of the flat instructed a foreigner with poor Italian to ring the emergency services (including the fire service according to Filament herself), rather than doing it herself. Why did Filomena not ring?

What? But why don't you stop to climb on these absurd pretexts. These are very mean objections. Raffaele Sollecito was with Knox: they should have called the police immediately. Any adult person of any language should have called the police immediately. It is obvious that it is those who are on the place, who see the broken window etc, who shall to call the police. Why should be Filomena to take over Knox's duty, and refer to the police about hearsay from another person? Come on try to be objective.

The odd thing is that the police did not break the door down. Why should it be expected of Sollecito to break down the door but not the police?

But it was not expected. The fact is just that he DID try to break the door down. And it is a fact that Knox downplayed the importance of the locked door.

You appear to hold Knox to a higher standard than Filomena. You hold Sollecito to a higher standard than the police. do you not see the bias in this?

No! Not in the slightest. It's all the other way around. It's that you seem to not realize the magnitude and extent of the inconsistence in Knox's behavior.

 

[Machiavelli]

You are making a horrid mistake here, you are spinning everything somebody is doing or saying under stress and trying to make something of it. As well, even right after an event, memories of what somebody did and when is always confused. To be blunt, that is just a bad idea.

I believe the phone calls have been discussed by others and my understanding is that only actual connection time is included in the time. If I connect to voice mail and worried about somebody, I will likely hang up not leave a voice mail.

Your technical concept of connection time is incorrect: ring time is counted withing the connection time. And the rest, is incorrect as well. There isn't another witness who told a comparably inconsistent story, except maybe Kokomani. But actually, I don't think he was as inconsistent as Knox.

 

[Desert Fox]

Your technical concept of connection time is incorrect: ring time is counted withing the connection time. And the rest, is incorrect as well. There isn't another witness who told a comparably inconsistent story, except maybe Kokomani. But actually, I don't think he was as inconsistent as Knox.

These inconsistencies you are argue seem more a figment of your own imagination than anything else. I also suspect that if her story did not have as many inconsistencies, your argument would be that her arguments are too perfect.

Edit: I just called an automated phone number, the equivalent of going to voice mail, my total connection time was 7 seconds.