Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

You keep using this word Bill – apparently you are unaware of its meaning.

Are you denying that first LJ and later Kauffer both declared It’s Irrelevant when they finally understood the reality of RS’s Nov5/6 disavowal of AK.

Now you may think this is a minor point. However I find it interesting for 2 reasons.
Firstly it highlights the Amanda centred nature of the cartwheel world. Tens of thousands of words on the ‘waterboarding’ of Britney and not a care for poor Raffy. Barely a mention of why this betrayal happened bar denial then avoidance or mumbling about calendars.

Secondly it might provide an indication of future developments after Cassation rules in March.
We have seen recently that RS tried to legally split his defence from AK in the Nencini trial & there was the press conference fiasco.
If/when RS is jailed and facing 25yrs with all appeals exhausted while AK is fighting extradition it might get interesting.

Who knows what strange things the Puglian might say.
I suspect that even one or two of the groupies have figured this out.

[Note I am specifically avoiding the ECHR confabulations – But Amanda being given a big bag of money & made Queen of Italy would hardly improve the mood in his cell]

Platonov - you have actually raised salient points in the post above, but it gets lost in the strawman silliness. I wonder WHY you're here... but let me say:

The separation strategy is well spelled out in Raffaele's appeals document to Cassazione. Please read it. It's all there and you do not need to rely on the hate sites to misconstrue what Raffaele is saying, and has always said.

What you interpret as Raffaele throwing Knox under a bus, is summarized in that document approximately:

If you are going to accuse Amanda of those things, what does this have to do with me?​

This is in direct contrast to Nencini, for instance, saying that a piece of evidence which condemns one, equally condemns both. The separation strategy is a challenge to the condemning-court finding that all the evidence against either applies to the other.

Barely a mention of why this betrayal happened bar denial then avoidance or mumbling about calendars.​

This is both a strawman and a salient point, I guess. I'm not sure how you can say, "barely a mention of why this betrayal happened", when the ONLY people who are saying that are the pro-guilt lobby. Everyone else is mentioning it ad nauseum!!! It's just that they are talking about it in a way that "barely mentions" your strawman, that's all.

If you would read the consistent view Raffaele has had on that subject, he is up front in saying that it was his own confusion of Oct 31 and Nov 1, without the cops telling him, really, why it was important to distinguish the two. It only gradually dawned on him that Chiacchiera et al. were accusing Amanda of something sinister; and only gradually later that he was being dragged into this.

I wish you would actually read something other than the pro-guilt hate sites - they have the confirmation-biased, redacted view of all this.

Read the originals. Read his book, and read his appeals documents. (At the very least, post proof of your "news conference" nonsense, or quit appealing to it!)

 

[Desert Fox]

Interesting point.
Even if they are soap residue, they may be splatter from hand-washing and have trapped some epithelial cells.

If they took samples from the drain hole, toothpaste has to go down that way.
I would be curious if there is any experimental data with regards to that?

 

[Numbers]

If they took samples from the drain hole, toothpaste has to go down that way.
I would be curious if there is any experimental data with regards to that?

Yes. Toothpaste with buccal cells and every thing in the sink not wiped off its surface or remaining on its surface.

 

[Desert Fox]

Yes. Toothpaste with buccal cells and every thing in the sink not wiped off its surface or remaining on its surface.

Maybe the evidence then either means that Amanda brushed her teeth more often than Meredeth or more recently

Edit: I should say that I am just joking. . . .How much DNA you get is almost luck as far as samples from individuals.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I'd be willing to bet that her 'dozens of forensic experts' amounts to little more than Garafano plus 'Nikki' of PMF showing her a paper which indicates that blood has more DNA than most biological substances. What she failed to realize is that the amount of each biological material contributing to the sample is the single largest factor and if you have a barely visible dollop of blood on a swab and then smear it all over someone's sink where they spit regularly you may end up with far more saliva (and possibly other materials) than blood thus the relative height of the peaks does nothing to indicate the material source of the DNA.

Kaosium,

Yes, exactly. Saliva is relatively rich in DNA, and the swabbing area was quite large, as the videos attest.

 

[Dougm]

<snip>

This, in my view, is one of the many areas that the defence lawyers failed to adequately deal with in the Massei trial - and once they'd messed it up in the Massei trial, it became automatically much. much harder to sort it out on appeal. They should have easily been able to demonstrate in court exactly why a) the physical evidence is in fact entirely consistent with a real break-in (including a justified roasting of the police for not properly analysing the ground beneath the window); b) this window was in fact an entirely logical point of ingress for someone like Guede (all the downstairs windows were covered with iron grates, the balcony windows and french doors were double-glazed and securely locked, and thus much much harder to break in through, and the climb to Filomena's window was in fact extremely easy for a young, athletic male); c) Guede's known movements fit well with the supposition that he cased the house at around 7.30pm, went away, then came back at 8.30pm, saw the entire house in total darkness and no noise, broke in and entered through Filomena's window, and was therefore already inside the cottage when Kercher returned* at around 9pm.


* And since it's entirely logical that Guede would have closed the external shutters of the broken window behind him once he was inside - since by doing so he would be able to conceal the broken window from anyone walking past or approaching the cottage - this would also explain why Kercher wouldn't had seen anything amiss when she returned at 9pm.

Re: highlighted portion. After years of discussion on this case, this is actually something I don't think I have seen discussed as a possibility before. (it probably has, but I missed it).

Generally (and correctly from a burden of proof POV), the discussion I have seen about the choice of window has been that, although this window seems a bit of an odd choice for Guede to have picked, it is not out of the question, and it is certainly possible that he could have broken in there, given his youth, athletic ability, and past experience with similar upper story window break ins.

The new point I noticed is the idea that Guede might actually have preferred that window, exactly because, being up high, it would not be noticed by anyone who might come home unexpectedly. As you said, he could break Filomena's window, climb up through it, then close the shutters, and it would be unlikely that someone returning home would notice the broken window. The kitchen or balcony windows that many suggest would have been more likely break in spots would also be much more likely to be seen by anyone coming home, because they are much closer to eye level.

Although this is not proof of anything, one piece of the case that has confused me in the past was why Guede would pick that window, given that there were easier choices. The evidence shows that he did, and that he could easily have broken in there, but doesn't explain why. This theory would actually make sense, and would be the way a burglar would think, not someone staging a burglary.

 

[Desert Fox]

Re: highlighted portion. After years of discussion on this case, this is actually something I don't think I have seen discussed as a possibility before. (it probably has, but I missed it).

Generally (and correctly from a burden of proof POV), the discussion I have seen about the choice of window has been that, although this window seems a bit of an odd choice for Guede to have picked, it is not out of the question, and it is certainly possible that he could have broken in there, given his youth, athletic ability, and past experience with similar upper story window break ins.

The new point I noticed is the idea that Guede might actually have preferred that window, exactly because, being up high, it would not be noticed by anyone who might come home unexpectedly. As you said, he could break Filomena's window, climb up through it, then close the shutters, and it would be unlikely that someone returning home would notice the broken window. The kitchen or balcony windows that many suggest would have been more likely break in spots would also be much more likely to be seen by anyone coming home, because they are much closer to eye level.

Although this is not proof of anything, one piece of the case that has confused me in the past was why Guede would pick that window, given that there were easier choices. The evidence shows that he did, and that he could easily have broken in there, but doesn't explain why. This theory would actually make sense, and would be the way a burglar would think, not someone staging a burglary.

Might also indicate that he planned to be inside for a while

 

[Samson]

The place to find this would be in the index to the trial testimony.

This is the only reference I found.

Jul 03, 2009 Sergeant Francesco Pasquali Sollecito defense ballistics consultant testifies about the break-in

I read Massei in the motivation report which was complete nonsense because his strategy could never get the glass shard embedded, which is the elephant in the room for stagers before they get to manually moving the glass to the correct locations, and explain whether the downstairs flat was known to be unoccupied when they came back for the staging. It doesn't work to attempt to wake them as a precaution of course with that dead body upstairs.

 

[Samson]

Re: highlighted portion. After years of discussion on this case, this is actually something I don't think I have seen discussed as a possibility before. (it probably has, but I missed it).

Generally (and correctly from a burden of proof POV), the discussion I have seen about the choice of window has been that, although this window seems a bit of an odd choice for Guede to have picked, it is not out of the question, and it is certainly possible that he could have broken in there, given his youth, athletic ability, and past experience with similar upper story window break ins.

The new point I noticed is the idea that Guede might actually have preferred that window, exactly because, being up high, it would not be noticed by anyone who might come home unexpectedly. As you said, he could break Filomena's window, climb up through it, then close the shutters, and it would be unlikely that someone returning home would notice the broken window. The kitchen or balcony windows that many suggest would have been more likely break in spots would also be much more likely to be seen by anyone coming home, because they are much closer to eye level.

Although this is not proof of anything, one piece of the case that has confused me in the past was why Guede would pick that window, given that there were easier choices. The evidence shows that he did, and that he could easily have broken in there, but doesn't explain why. This theory would actually make sense, and would be the way a burglar would think, not someone staging a burglary.

Another point Hendry made is the tree was still in leaf, providing good visual cover, and darkness had fallen.
The prosecution used the closed external shutters to explain the straight line of the glass on the ledge when the window was broken from inside, but pulling the shutters closed after entry has the same effect*. All the glass is on the right hand side from outside, and he climbed in the left leaving the debris in the photo. Neatly stacked glass is another signature from the lawyer break in.

* I remember DanO had another idea here, but can't recall what.

 

[Diocletus]

Kaosium,

Yes, exactly. Saliva is relatively rich in DNA, and the swabbing area was quite large, as the videos attest.

If we need any more proof of this, we can notice that the reference profiles for Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba are from cheek swabs, and they clock in at about 7,000 RFUs.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

cigarette butt

If we need any more proof of this, we can notice that the reference profiles for Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba are from cheek swabs, and they clock in at about 7,000 RFUs.

IIRC Raf's cigarette butt is also pretty high in RFUs, and this is likely from saliva.

 

[Dopre]

Let's leave this idea about the DNA source from the sink swabs in the trash bin where it belongs. It's complete nonsense to assert the source is blood based on a high RFU value.

In the words of forensics expert Dan Krane ..."Inferring tissue source from peak heights is just plain silly -- to the point of being absolutely outrageous. It hardly bears more comment than that, but if high peaks mean blood then what would you expect from semen which has a ten to one hundred fold higher concentration of DNA?"

And yet again Chris's excellent post ... viewfromwilmington.blogspot.ru/2011/09/questions-and-answers-about-mixed-dna.html

p.s.
Can't post links until at least 15 posts here...sorry!

 

[Bill Williams]

IIRC Raf's cigarette butt is also pretty high in RFUs, and this is likely from saliva.

Well, Machiavelli helped us out with the issue of the kitchen knife matching the bedsheet stain.

No one, until Prosecutor Crini had mentioned it in court, with no proof other than the mention, no one even hinted at the match, because the mismatch is so obvious.

Yet no matter. A few photoshopped minutes later, Machiavelli "proves" this.

So why not get Machiavelli to photoshop something to help us understand that high RFU's suggest guilt?

C'mon Machiavelli, I know you want to.....

 

[lonepinealex]

Re: highlighted portion. After years of discussion on this case, this is actually something I don't think I have seen discussed as a possibility before. (it probably has, but I missed it).

Generally (and correctly from a burden of proof POV), the discussion I have seen about the choice of window has been that, although this window seems a bit of an odd choice for Guede to have picked, it is not out of the question, and it is certainly possible that he could have broken in there, given his youth, athletic ability, and past experience with similar upper story window break ins.

The new point I noticed is the idea that Guede might actually have preferred that window, exactly because, being up high, it would not be noticed by anyone who might come home unexpectedly. As you said, he could break Filomena's window, climb up through it, then close the shutters, and it would be unlikely that someone returning home would notice the broken window. The kitchen or balcony windows that many suggest would have been more likely break in spots would also be much more likely to be seen by anyone coming home, because they are much closer to eye level.

Although this is not proof of anything, one piece of the case that has confused me in the past was why Guede would pick that window, given that there were easier choices. The evidence shows that he did, and that he could easily have broken in there, but doesn't explain why. This theory would actually make sense, and would be the way a burglar would think, not someone staging a burglary.

One thing that the guilters who bang on about how Guede would have naturally opted for the balcony entrance don't seem to see is that the oncoming traffic headlights would have lit that balcony up like a searchlight. It faces right on to the busy road (possibly busier that night after the festival).

Filomena's window would have been in almost completely in the dark at all times, as it faces away from the road and is in the lee of headlights from the traffic approaching from the other side. It also affords an easier and more discreet getaway than going round to the exposed side of the cottage.

 

[Samson]

There is another case, American, quite similar to this one, in which they convicted a husband for raping and brutally murdering his own wife, with whom he was reasonably happily cohabiting. In fact, it emerged the killer was some random intruder whose van was spotted some way behind the house but, while the finger was pointed at the husband, everything in the house that suggested an outsider was interpreted as staging not least by those infernal blood spatter experts who seem to be at the heart of more than their fair share of miscarriages of justice.

Another case, with which I am slightly more familiar, is Darlie Routier. She is supposed to have stabbed her two small sons to death, then cut her own throat and staged the scene to look like an intruder did it. She's on death row. Crazy case. Wonder what Charlie makes of that one.

I chanced on this

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8836909&postcount=4

 

[Machiavelli]

One thing that the guilters who bang on about how Guede would have naturally opted for the balcony entrance don't seem to see is that the oncoming traffic headlights would have lit that balcony up like a searchlight. It faces right on to the busy road (possibly busier that night after the festival).

It is absolutely false.
As Nencini also notes.

The balcony is visible from the road only from a 35-meter distance, but it is completely at the side, off from headlights direction and in the darkness.

Moreover, a human being on the balcony would not appear suspicious.

All true break-ins were from the balcony.

Filomena's window would have been in almost completely in the dark at all times, as it faces away from the road and is in the lee of headlights from the traffic approaching from the other side. It also affords an easier and more discreet getaway than going round to the exposed side of the cottage.

Filomena's room is indeed only five meters from S. Antonio road right above; almost in the direction of headlights from cars at the parking crossroad, directly under the lamp lights and well visible from the parking lot and from the crossroad.

In fact, statistics say burglars basically always choose entrances that have a surface below them at the same ground level, that is either entrance doors and windows at ground floor, or windows with balconies.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, Machiavelli helped us out with the issue of the kitchen knife matching the bedsheet stain.

No one, until Prosecutor Crini had mentioned it in court, with no proof other than the mention, no one even hinted at the match, because the mismatch is so obvious.

Yet no matter. A few photoshopped minutes later, Machiavelli "proves" this.

(...)

Maybe you should add that you are unable to disprove it.

 

[Desert Fox]

All true break-ins were from the balcony.

Do you not understand how making such absolute statements makes you look like an idiot. If you said "Most common" that would be different.

 

[Samson]

It is absolutely false.
As Nencini also notes.

The balcony is visible from the road only from a 35-meter distance, but it is completely at the side, off from headlights direction and in the darkness.

Moreover, a human being on the balcony would not appear suspicious.

All true break-ins were from the balcony.



Filomena's room is indeed only five meters from S. Antonio road right above; almost in the direction of headlights from cars at the parking crossroad, directly under the lamp lights and well visible from the parking lot and from the crossroad.

In fact, statistics say burglars basically always choose entrances that have a surface below them at the same ground level, that is either entrance doors and windows at ground floor, or windows with balconies.

To stage this you must know that no one returned to the down stairs flat, while you were out of the house after the murder, would you not agree? How could Amanda know this? After all, she was very removed from knowing who might come and go that night, and the last thing she wants is someone from downstairs investigating loud noises early morning upstairs..

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - when you photoshopped that picture of the knife, manufacturing evidence from thin air:

Did you even blush?

This crap is for moderators' care.