Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

I would have to assume the opposite.

Its the "twisted Italy legal system" that wants to wear out those, who oppose and speak out against this, political driven and derailed train, court system.

More likely the goal is for the attention to fade away is more a wish of the System that protects each other like a Nazi Gestapo of WW2, or some other corrupt power trip group. Migninni, Matteni, Stefonani, and Naopleoni, and Edgardo Giobbi- the Senior Witch Hunters... who bonded when the outsiders came to make fools of them and print globally how they didn't test a semen stain on the pillow of a rape, murder victim, how they couldn't count circles on a tennis shoe, how they lied about budgets for recording the interrogation and hardrives "accidentally?" destroyed over and over and over.... and if you call them liars or fools, or that they slapped you, the Judge has the Prosecutor investigate to find you guilty of that too, maybe charge you with 6yrs in prison for testifying in your own defense.

They are the "home team" wanting everyone else to leave, they hope everyone wears out and gives up so they can go back to their dishonest-police jobs.

{Highlighting added to quote.}
These are Benito's Boys and Girls.

 

[RWVBWL]

Another fascinating find, and more great questions.

Who is Oceania 9? I thought "skeptical bystander" was Dr Lila Schneps, guilter mathematician extraordinaire - and that her daughter was dating a friend of Rudy's. And that's why Schneps has been hell bent on lessening Guede's guilt, i.e. protecting her daughter by association.

But why were these friends of Rudy interviewed 4 days after the crime? What led the police to them?

Hi Carbonjam72,
From what I remember, Skep is the mod of PMF.org, her name is Peggy Ganong, she lives in Seattle I think. The funny thing is that she, Candace Dempsey, and I think Mike of PMF.net were all friends in debate right after the murder happened. They used to discuss the case in depth on Steve Huff's old True Crime weblog site. Heck, I seem to recall that Peggy G. even used to help translate for Frank Sfarzo's Perugia Shock when it had a pro-guilt slant. It was only after FS and CD started to believe that Amanda and Raff were not involved in Miss Kercher's murder that their relationship soured. Then the relationship between Peggy and Mike at PMF further soured, so they split up into 2 PMF's. Dr Lila is 1 of the PGP folks, like Machiavelli is, but she is public with her work and real name...


Oceania had a son studying in Perugia. She and her son are from New Zealand. If you can find any of her early posts, they are informative, Rudy apparently hung out with the New Zealand guys, he said in his March 26, 2008 Interogation, (his 2nd with ILE) that he'd been to their house. I've read a few times that Oceania's son told his Mom of a bro of Rudy's that was scary or dangerous. Maybe someday I'll look in some places where I might get lucky and find a few of these old posts of hers...

I wonder what the link is between Meredith Kercher and the New Zealand football boyz? Rudy Guede?

It would be interesting to read of their testimony to the police.
Why were they even called in to be questioned?

It would also be really good to read of Rudy Guede's 1st Italian Interrogation,
the one that lasted for 7 hours with PM Mignini and Judge Claudia Matteini on Dec. 7, 2007.
See ya, RW

 

[acbytesla]

Turning off a phone is not evidence of guilt, however:
1) it is evidence of lying, since Sollecito declared his phone was on.
2) it is to be noted if it is an unusual action. Knox used to never do it.
3) it was a topic of inconsistency, since Knox presented unconvincing explanations for that.

It can be suspicious if coupled to other evidence. However it is obviously not a point itself.

1)It is not evidence of lying even if Sollecito declared his phone was on. There is a difference between misremembering and lying. Misremembering is just having an imperfect memory whereas lying is a deliberate attempt to deceive. There were countless times where Perugian authorities said things that were demonstrably false. Were they lying? Or misrembering?

2) It is to be noted if it is an unusual action? Turning off your phone is an unusual action? Is it unusual to do so when one wants to be romantic and doesn't want to be disturbed? Or is that not an acceptable explanation? And if it isn't...when was the last time you got laid?

3) Perhaps it is the myopic view you have and not Knox? I think that it is not unusual for people to get nervous when being accused of a heinous crime and that can effect one's memory.

Sadly, through your guilter's lens, you are seeing goblins that simply do not exist. Do you see UFOs as well?

 

[RWVBWL]

Greetings all,
As many know, I'm a big fan of Perugia Shock,
heck Italian Frank Sfarzo went to the trials of Amanda and Raffaele all the time, and you nor I did, right?

For some who wish to read of Perugia Shock,
here is another way to do so, it's on Docstoc.com,
courtesy of Scornflake!!!

Sign up and download ALL of Perugia Shock!

http://www.docstoc.com/profile/scornflake

 

[Samson]

This case reads like another tragedy (miscarriage of justice). Wonder what Mach thinks? Probably the police and the courts can do no wrong, especially if they use their super-Clouseau powers of perception, finely honed in the service of the Surete, I can assure you...

It appears the trial is at the same stage as this one, with an appeal to the Supreme court, and he remains at large.
Some relationship history, and a motive would be interesting.
Machiavelli believes Sabrina Misseri and her mother killed her cousin with no motive, I imagine he has no doubt they have gathered in another homicidal maniac.
Chris will remember this post.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6988396&postcount=5276

 

[Dan O.]

From article above linked: Nov 20, 2007:



From this article you posted, it still seems that Rudy was identified by "two of his fingerprints" at the crime scene.

The tracing of Rudy's computer IP address, wouldn't explain how the police came into contact with Rudy, unless his friend ratted him out as you say - but that's not the story this article presents - and the time line as to when Rudy's name surfaced in the press and how, still seems fuzzy.

The only facts I've seen reported in articles or books so far, is that Rudy was ID'd from prints of some kind at the crime scene.

I'm open to other explanations, but I don't think I've seen any questioning of the standard answer of "Rudy's prints at the crime scene, matched to immigration".

Obviously access to the original case file would provide all the answers to everything. Imagine getting a look at Stef's original DNA files for example, or the human DNA profiles from downstairs?

Seems like we must speculate in the dark, and curse the crooked bastards for their obvious remorseless amoral criminality. F' 'em all.

If they identified Rudy from the fingerprints, why did it take so bloody long? The prints were in plane site in the early hours (like 02:30) of November 3. It should only take a couple of days at most if they have a clean print that can be fed into an Automated Fingerprint Identification System.

But then, the bumbling idiots also saw the bra clasp at this time and didn't bother to tag and bag it so why would they worry about a bloody palm print found under the victim?! The last photos of the first investigation end just after noon (long after everything happened) and the pillow is still sitting there in the middle of the floor. dsc_0283.jpg is perhaps the best shot of the palm print.

If we make the assumption that the police identified Rudy through the palm print, we can work the timeline backwards. November 16th when Rudy is positively identified, subtract 2 days for entering and running the search and that brings us back to November 14. This would all fit if the police had returned to the cottage on the evening of the 13th to fetch that pillowcase. The must have left in a hurry because the front door was found open on the morning of the 14th.

 

[anglolawyer]

Their supposedly turning off their phones is not only 'not a point in itself' it's not a point at all. Try to work it into some remotely credible account of what happened.

The cops interpreted every piece of phone activity/inactivity as evidence of guilt. She exchanged texts with Patrick, they turned their phones off (did they?), Patrick phoned her while she was at the questura on the 2nd, then there were no more telecommunications between them and they met face to face on the 5th, obviously to evade surveillance. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[Bill Williams]

Their supposedly turning off their phones is not only 'not a point in itself' it's not a point at all. Try to work it into some remotely credible account of what happened.

The cops interpreted every piece of phone activity/inactivity as evidence of guilt. She exchanged texts with Patrick, they turned their phones off (did they?), Patrick phoned her while she was at the questura on the 2nd, then there were no more telecommunications between them and they met face to face on the 5th, obviously to evade surveillance. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

pmop57 is doing on IIP with "The Anatomy of the Case", what Numbers is doing here with the CHR. Going through in detail relevancy of various issues; one of which is the issue of the "simultneous turning off of the cellphones at Raffaele's."

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=2939&start=800

See:

The cell-phones switched OFF - Evidence of Guilt?

The evening of the the 1th of Nov. 2007 AK and RS simultanousy switched OFF their cell-phones.

For the Prosecution this was major probative evidence of guilt because it was clearly showing that both intended to avoid their whereabouts to be later traced by the Police, that it was proof that both had planned to commit a crime, that both had planned to murder MK, that the crime was premeditated.

The Prosecution never could present any evidence to support their allegations, no Judge ever ruled that the murder was premeditated. Nevertheless the Posecution continued to proclame that switching OFF the cell-phones was evidence of guilt.
Prosecutor Crini and Judge Nencini definitely ruled out premeditation.

The stating and ruling of the Judges that the murder had not been premeditated, the alleged evidence of guilt became evidence in favour of the defendants because it proved them right and confirmed their version of the why they had switched OFF the cell-phones. This aspect was completely ignored!

The profile of the phoning habits of AK and RS as established by the investigators has clearly shown that both never went offline the months prior to the occurrence of the crime except the evening of the 1t of Nov. 2007.

After it had been established through the facts that the crime was not premeditated why else should they have gone offline but to spent a quite and calm evening without being disturbed by anybody:
- not to be called by PL to nevertheless come to work,
- not be called back another time by RS's father, very much caring and apparently very dominating his son.​

In short, the only possible relevance of the switching off of the phones to this case is if one presumes premeditation.

No premeditation, no relevance to the action surrounding the phones.

Which is, of course, the implications of all the courts - none of which found premeditation. Massei found it as a last second, "choice for evil" where AK and RS inexplicably sided with Guede over Kercher, and Nencini had an escalating dispute over the rent money.

It's the same as with the phantom-transport of Raffaele's kitchen knife; except that in this case that transport from the apartment to the cottage never happened. But both Massei and Nencini had to address some phantom reason for that knife to be transported, given that neither could see premeditation, even in their fantasy recreation of the crime.

Fortunately, neither does Machiavelli see the phones-switching as relevant to the crime, either, except for his lame point that, "Raffaele lied".

It's worth the read for folks here to go through all of pmop57's points on IIP. If this was a just evaluation of the case, Cassazione itself would go through the issues one by one like pmop57 is doing (or Numbers) and decide accordingly.

However, no one believes Mignini on this point any more - not even Machiavelli. It's good to know that Machiavelli will throw the towel in on something, and not mindlessly defend Mignini on everything.

 

[Bill Williams]

Their supposedly turning off their phones is not only 'not a point in itself' it's not a point at all. Try to work it into some remotely credible account of what happened.

The cops interpreted every piece of phone activity/inactivity as evidence of guilt. She exchanged texts with Patrick, they turned their phones off (did they?), Patrick phoned her while she was at the questura on the 2nd, then there were no more telecommunications between them and they met face to face on the 5th, obviously to evade surveillance. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

... and one last thing, this is also relevant to the "all the other evidence" claim the pro-guilt lobby makes.

The switching off of the cell phones is in that list. Once the DNA evidence is seen for what it is - trash - and once Curatolo, Nara and Quintavalle are seen for what they are - people rushed into service month's later as phantom witnesses - what's left?

All the other evidence.

Like the switching off the phones thing - with is also irrelevant to the crime.

Rudy Guede did the deed. Amongst other things, what points to him uniquely as the sole perp is that he left his forensic presence inside the victim.

 

[LondonJohn]

If they identified Rudy from the fingerprints, why did it take so bloody long? The prints were in plane site in the early hours (like 02:30) of November 3. It should only take a couple of days at most if they have a clean print that can be fed into an Automated Fingerprint Identification System.

But then, the bumbling idiots also saw the bra clasp at this time and didn't bother to tag and bag it so why would they worry about a bloody palm print found under the victim?! The last photos of the first investigation end just after noon (long after everything happened) and the pillow is still sitting there in the middle of the floor. dsc_0283.jpg is perhaps the best shot of the palm print.

If we make the assumption that the police identified Rudy through the palm print, we can work the timeline backwards. November 16th when Rudy is positively identified, subtract 2 days for entering and running the search and that brings us back to November 14. This would all fit if the police had returned to the cottage on the evening of the 13th to fetch that pillowcase. The must have left in a hurry because the front door was found open on the morning of the 14th.

I think it's important here to differentiate between fingerprints and palm prints. For fingerprint matching, a high level of resolution detail is required, in order to identify and compare the loops and whorls. But for palm print matching, one is looking not at this fine level of detail, but rather at the creases and lines in the palm. If you look at your own palm, you'll easily see the pattern of lines on the palm (think palm reading!), but you won't be able to see the detail of your own fingerprint.

Take a look at this photograph. It's of a hand print lifted off nylon fabric:



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110131073141.htm

While this print was lifted using a new technique (developed in 2011), you can easily see how sufficient detail of palm line patterns is left on woven fabric. Note also how it appears extremely hard to see fingerprint detail on this image - that's why it's always been deemed near-impossible to life usable fingerprints off woven fabric (though this new technique claims to make it possible in some cases).

And that's why I think it's plausible that the police were able to lift a usable palm print from that woven cotton pillow case, and that there was sufficient detail of the lines and creases of the palm to enable a match to be made to Guede. There's a very significant difference between the resolution/detail required for a palm print match than that required for a fingerprint match.

 

[Samson]

... and one last thing, this is also relevant to the "all the other evidence" claim the pro-guilt lobby makes.

The switching off of the cell phones is in that list. Once the DNA evidence is seen for what it is - trash - and once Curatolo, Nara and Quintavalle are seen for what they are - people rushed into service month's later as phantom witnesses - what's left?

All the other evidence.

Like the switching off the phones thing - with is also irrelevant to the crime.

Rudy Guede did the deed. Amongst other things, what points to him uniquely as the sole perp is that he left his forensic presence inside the victim.

He was the only one with opportunity.
Raffaele was on his computer shortly after Meredith died.
Where was Amanda?

 

[LondonJohn]

pmop57 is doing on IIP with "The Anatomy of the Case", what Numbers is doing here with the CHR. Going through in detail relevancy of various issues; one of which is the issue of the "simultneous turning off of the cellphones at Raffaele's."

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=2939&start=800

See:

​

In short, the only possible relevance of the switching off of the phones to this case is if one presumes premeditation.

No premeditation, no relevance to the action surrounding the phones.

Which is, of course, the implications of all the courts - none of which found premeditation. Massei found it as a last second, "choice for evil" where AK and RS inexplicably sided with Guede over Kercher, and Nencini had an escalating dispute over the rent money.

It's the same as with the phantom-transport of Raffaele's kitchen knife; except that in this case that transport from the apartment to the cottage never happened. But both Massei and Nencini had to address some phantom reason for that knife to be transported, given that neither could see premeditation, even in their fantasy recreation of the crime.

Fortunately, neither does Machiavelli see the phones-switching as relevant to the crime, either, except for his lame point that, "Raffaele lied".

It's worth the read for folks here to go through all of pmop57's points on IIP. If this was a just evaluation of the case, Cassazione itself would go through the issues one by one like pmop57 is doing (or Numbers) and decide accordingly.

However, no one believes Mignini on this point any more - not even Machiavelli. It's good to know that Machiavelli will throw the towel in on something, and not mindlessly defend Mignini on everything.

Exactly. And one not only has to presume premeditation, one also has to presume premeditation of a serious criminal offence.

After all, if Knox's and Sollecito's prior intention had been to have some sort of weird sex game with Kercher, or to play a disturbing prank upon her, then why would they have deliberately chosen to turn off their phones? The only (nefarious) reason for doing so would be knowledge that the police would be able to use their phone connectivity record to track their movements. So if they were turning off their phones in order to avoid being location-traced by the police, this automatically implies they were considering doing something which would constitute a serious criminal offence even before they left Sollecito's apartment.

And I don't think that even many of the pro-guilt idiots commentators believes that Knox and Sollecito conceivably left Sollecito's apartment that evening with murder or serious sexual assault on their minds. Certainly the combined courts didn't think that - they saw it variously as some sort of sex game or prank that "went wrong".

And lastly, of course, the technologically-savvy Sollecito would surely have realised that - had they indeed considered committing a serious criminal offence before they even left the apartment - the far better option would have been to leave the phones turned on and in the apartment. At least that way they could subsequently point to the location records to support a claim that they had been in the apartment all along.

This phone-switched-off (non-) issue is total nonsense, absolutely non-probative as evidence, and utterly destroyed by any reasoned analysis. As you and others point out, to cling to it as another strand of a belief in guilt is merely to illustrate poor thinking skills and/or an inbuilt and improper bias against Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Machiavelli]

PM Mignini said it was a sign of premeditation. All the courts disagreed with him.

Mignini did not push a charge of premeditation.

 

[Samson]

Exactly. And one not only has to presume premeditation, one also has to presume premeditation of a serious criminal offence.

After all, if Knox's and Sollecito's prior intention had been to have some sort of weird sex game with Kercher, or to play a disturbing prank upon her, then why would they have deliberately chosen to turn off their phones? The only (nefarious) reason for doing so would be knowledge that the police would be able to use their phone connectivity record to track their movements. So if they were turning off their phones in order to avoid being location-traced by the police, this automatically implies they were considering doing something which would constitute a serious criminal offence even before they left Sollecito's apartment.

And I don't think that even many of the pro-guilt idiots commentators believes that Knox and Sollecito conceivably left Sollecito's apartment that evening with murder or serious sexual assault on their minds. Certainly the combined courts didn't think that - they saw it variously as some sort of sex game or prank that "went wrong".

And lastly, of course, the technologically-savvy Sollecito would surely have realised that - had they indeed considered committing a serious criminal offence before they even left the apartment - the far better option would have been to leave the phones turned on and in the apartment. At least that way they could subsequently point to the location records to support a claim that they had been in the apartment all along.

This phone-switched-off (non-) issue is total nonsense, absolutely non-probative as evidence, and utterly destroyed by any reasoned analysis. As you and others point out, to cling to it as another strand of a belief in guilt is merely to illustrate poor thinking skills and/or an inbuilt and improper bias against Knox and Sollecito.

I believe it has been noted that Raffaele's father was a prolific communicator, and for him to turn off his phone when Amanda had work cancelled was a rational act for a young man in love.
This screams intention to stay home. Guilters who still read here, please explain the precise, and perfect reasoning that says I am dumb as a post. I read your threads, so I look forward to being ridiculed there.

 

[LondonJohn]

Their supposedly turning off their phones is not only 'not a point in itself' it's not a point at all. Try to work it into some remotely credible account of what happened.

The cops interpreted every piece of phone activity/inactivity as evidence of guilt. She exchanged texts with Patrick, they turned their phones off (did they?), Patrick phoned her while she was at the questura on the 2nd, then there were no more telecommunications between them and they met face to face on the 5th, obviously to evade surveillance. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Absolutely - and I think this speaks very strongly to one of the central problems in the flawed investigation into this case. It appears rather clear that the police and PM constructed their theory of "the truth" very early on, and then went looking for evidence to confirm that theory. This methodology of course flies in the face of proper practice in criminal investigations, which is to gather and analyse the evidence first, and go only where the evidence leads you.

In this case, I believe it's clear that by 4th November the police/PM had decided in their own minds that a) the break-in was staged, b) Knox and Sollecito were lying to them about at least Knox's whereabouts, and c) Knox at least was involved (whether directly or indirectly) in the murder. They then went looking specifically for evidence to "prove" that theory. Of course the main thing they were looking for was for Sollecito to give Knox up by admitting she had left his apartment that night, and then for Knox to "buckle" and admit she was there and had conspired with the killer (Lumumba at that point) to kill Kercher.

And the investigation clearly carried on in a similar vein after that. Any evidence pointing away from Knox/Sollecito was minimised or rationalised away, and any evidence that could conceivably be twisted to point towards their guilt was maximised and hyperbolised.

 

[anglolawyer]

Absolutely - and I think this speaks very strongly to one of the central problems in the flawed investigation into this case. It appears rather clear that the police and PM constructed their theory of "the truth" very early on, and then went looking for evidence to confirm that theory. This methodology of course flies in the face of proper practice in criminal investigations, which is to gather and analyse the evidence first, and go only where the evidence leads you.
In this case, I believe it's clear that by 4th November the police/PM had decided in their own minds that a) the break-in was staged, b) Knox and Sollecito were lying to them about at least Knox's whereabouts, and c) Knox at least was involved (whether directly or indirectly) in the murder. They then went looking specifically for evidence to "prove" that theory. Of course the main thing they were looking for was for Sollecito to give Knox up by admitting she had left his apartment that night, and then for Knox to "buckle" and admit she was there and had conspired with the killer (Lumumba at that point) to kill Kercher.

And the investigation clearly carried on in a similar vein after that. Any evidence pointing away from Knox/Sollecito was minimised or rationalised away, and any evidence that could conceivably be twisted to point towards their guilt was maximised and hyperbolised.

Highlighting mine - it's a very common pattern. Once a theory gets a grip it seems to exert mind-numbing power. See David Camm, Nyki Kish, Shrien Dewani and many others*. In Kish, it was so strong it induced the principal detective to not look at crucial CCTV film for weeks and then to hand wave its content away when he eventually did so, even to the extent of not bothering to track down or interview clearly identifiable people who had either participated in or witnessed the violence (from a few feet away) .

ETA * Darlie Routier

 

[Samson]

Mignini did not push a charge of premeditation.

Yet as has been repeatedly pointed out, the cooking theory is not a runner for this purpose, and Knox stands convicted of transporting a knife.
1. Was it to cook with?
2. Was it for a premeditated act of violence?
3. Was it for self defence?

This is a multi choice question, and there may be options I have not considered.

Incidentally, Guede claimed that procuring a knife from a kitchen drawer was for purpose 3. in the Milan kindergarten, but Machiavelli says this is not an offence. Of course he did not transport it, so it was not an offence. Nevertheless the chain of direct evidence stands in total contradistinction to the conviction entered against Amanda for a merely conjectured transporting, because a dna profile was alleged to be on a knife cleaned with bleach.

 

[Vibio]

Raff chooses option 1.

From his diary:

"... Amanda could have taken it and carried it from my house to her house since the girls didnʹt have a knife like that one "

And

"The fact that there is Meredithʹs DNA on the kitchen knife is because on one occasion, while we were cooking together..."

 

[Samson]

Raff chooses option 1.

From his diary:

"... Amanda could have taken it and carried it from my house to her house since the girls didnʹt have a knife like that one "

And

"The fact that there is Meredithʹs DNA on the kitchen knife is because on one occasion, while we were cooking together..."

The problem I see is that it can not possibly be a crime, because knives are transported legitimately, yet there is a conviction entered.
Vibio, which of these convictions do you regard as correct for Amanda?

1. Transporting a knife.
2. Sexual assault.
3. Murder.
4. Stealing cell phones.
5. Staging a break in.

 

[Diocletus]

Raff chooses option 1.

From his diary:

"... Amanda could have taken it and carried it from my house to her house since the girls didnʹt have a knife like that one "

And

"The fact that there is Meredithʹs DNA on the kitchen knife is because on one occasion, while we were cooking together..."

Also, Meredith could have farted on it.