Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
-

RWVBWL said:
I gotta think out loud sometimes,
here's 1 more time...


Might the attack 1st started downstairs?
Maybe Miss Kercher went downstairs to feed
or check on the hurt cat when she came home.
Might this explain some of the blood drops on Stefano's bed? The disheaveled bedspread, etc. If so, might it be when Meredith screamed out loud, while being outside and led back upstairs as Rudy sat on the toilet after having broken in before she arrived home? Maybe this is the commotion that had all the people looking towards the cottage, as seen last year, (I think it was) on the video camera freeze frame pix from the parking lot CCTV across the street in what was it, Oggi Magazine??
Just a thought...
RW


PS - Stay warm, Kaosium, and enjoy the crisp winter air,
for man, though I'm as tan as I can be from our bitchin' So Cal winter sunshine,
(yes I surfed the other day for an hour while wearing only surf trunks),
well I gotta say, since I've dated a coupla cute New England girlz before,
I miss seein' + bein' in the snow, well just for a lil' while!!!

PSS - I too wonder: Where's The Grinder?!?

PSSS - Thanks for the conversation D, I'm out...
RW
Click to expand...
-

Nice talking with you also. One more thought before I sign out also.

If Meredith was taking off her coat when she was surprised, I myself stay away from open containers and especially glasses of water. I tend to knock things over when I take my coat off and so I wouldn't be near the glass of water, and maybe Meredith wasn't either, and this makes my single-attacker scenario, more probable.

A 4 person, 3 attacker, scenario has to take that glass of water into account also. This alone, makes a single-attacker scenario much more probable over four people in the room struggling. The more people that struggle, the better the odds are that someone's gonna knock that glass over,

d

-
 
RWVBWL said:
Hey Dave,
I beg to differ,
for in my hunble opinion, well your theory does not take into consideration ALL of the evidence.

Look,
we all seem to not remember all the different aspects of this brutal case, so allow me to chime in with a few tidbits that we have discussed over the years.

IIRC,
Meredith did not call her Mom every day.
Find and re-read the record of her phone calls. The fact that she did not retry calling her Mom after losing the signal does not seem that important to me. I recall that she did not call her Mom on at least 1 day in the week prior to her murder. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I betcha my memory is correct...


What about the bruising on her body:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110504...logspot.com/2008/10/pointing-at-murderer.html

I asked LMT years ago if these might have been caused by rough foreplay or luv making with Giacomo, before he split town for the holiday. LMT did not think this so.

So LJ and others have helped inform me here on The ISF that bruising stops when a person dies, ok?Yet if Giacomo's rough sex play, which Barbie Nadeau even wrote of in Angel Face,
was not the cause of these bruises as seen in the above link to old Perugia Shock, how the heck did these bruises appear if she was immediately assaulted and killed? She was knifed in the throat and bled out in minutes, right? She shouldn't have bruised. Yet she has bruising on her...

ETA:
Allow me to quote some Sfarzo,
he went to court, you nor I did, right?





How come there is no blood on her blue jeans buttons or zipper,
or her black underwear? many think these were removed after she was knifed, right?
Where's the bloody fingerprints or hand prints from whomever removed these items of clothing off her?
What about her shoes and socks? Were they covered in blood from whomever removed them? I don't seem to recall this being so...


Lastly Dave,
why do many of you seem to discredit and apparently completely disregard all of the downstairs evidence of that too being an unexplained part of the murder scene when putting forth your theories?


Have a good 1 D!
These are just a few random thoughts from an old surfer,
(Sorry you're freezin' Kaosium, but I wore board shorts + a tank top today
as I rode my beach cruiser around town to pick up lunch and beverages, hehehe!),
who still reads up here sometimes of this discussion...
L8, RW
Click to expand...

This is more complicated. Bruising by definition is pre mortem. Post mortem haemorrhage can occur and mimics bruising.
Postmortem extravasation of blood potentially simulating antemortem bruising.
Burke M.P., Olumbe A.K., Opeskin K.
American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. 19 (1) (pp 46-49), 1998. Date of Publication: 1998
Hemorrhagic lividity of the neck: controlled induction of postmortem hypostatic hemorrhages.
Pollanen M.S., Perera S.D., Clutterbuck D.J.
The American journal of forensic medicine and pathology : official publication of the National Association of Medical Examiners. 30 (4) (pp 322-326), 2009. Date of Publication: Dec 2009
Obviously bruising may have occurred hours or days before death, and may be unrelated. The count of injuries often quoted will be the total count of injuries which may r may not be related to death. For bruising the colour change may indicate if they are days old, but for more recent bruising microscopic examination is needed. The post mortem examination would include an evaluation of each bruise and an estimate of age.
 
Kaosium said:
In my case it's because I don't know enough about it. I read through what you, Diocletus, Michael B, Anglo and Dan-O write about it and still am unable to get a fix on just what relevance it has to Amanda Knox and Raffaele being part of Rudy's grisly crime. The samples taken from the downstairs are one area I'd be looking to find trace elements of Rudy Guede were the EDFs to be released, but considering the lengths Stefanoni went to in order to keep them hidden I suspect ever seeing them is a forlorn hope.
snip
Click to expand...
Moi? I am where you are but TBH I am in denial about the downstairs. I want it to be the cat and to have nothing to do with the crime because I already have a GUT that works without it. I don't see Rudy sticking around downstairs after the murder, can't see how the blood can have got down there without being spattered on the way down and I can't see Amanda and Raffaele gaining anything by going down there and mussing things up. But, I admit I don't really want to look.
 
Machiavelli said:
Scientific research can be part of a trial.
It means that methods developed though scientific knowledge can be employed of the process of evidence finding in a court.

But a trial does equate to scientific research nor to results of a scientific research.
I hope this subtlety is not too difficult to grasp, because it's a fundamental difference. It's something the pro-Knoxes seems have problems to understand.

Trial and scientific methods of investigation are not the same thing.

Methods used as scientific means for evidence findings are subjected to peer review, but the trial is not something peer-reviewed nor a peer-review process, and a peer-review process about methd is not a trial.

An assessment about the quality of scientific methods that were employed to find evidence, does not equate to putting in discussion the result of a trial.

In some peculiar cases, in theory, there might be an evidence finding obtained through scientific methods that allowes the entire trial to be re-opened and its outcome to be put in discussion; but that's another story. A simple criticism or peer-reviewing of the quality of some investigation methods does not change anything and has nothing to do with the outcome of a trial.

To complain that some collecting of evidence - ballistics, fingerprint or else - used imperfect or low quality, less than state-of-the art methods, or that something is not perfectly scientific, is a completely pointless argument.
And this is true especially in this case in particular (a case based on circumstantial evidence).

You once asked me what is the difference between some piece of "scientific evidence" and the "context". To understand how scientific research, scientific certainty their peer-review on one side, they do not equate with the outcome deduced from the evidence under a legal point of view, let's make an example.

Imagne a simplified case. Not this one, nut another one, an imaginary case much simpler than this with just few elements: a woman is found dead, her body is naked and her clothes are ripped off, she has bruises on her body, and she has small bruises on her genital area.

Imagine a coroner that, from a scientific point of view, makes the following observation: there is no scientific proof that there was sexual violence, since bruises on the vagina might have other causes, not always indicate sexual violence. Imagine that someone presents a statystical table indicating medical results, reporting that about 20% of bruises found on vagina in average have nothing to do with sexual violence.

Based on these scientifical findings, it would be possible to draw the conclusion that there is no scientific evidence of sexual violence. If you apply a cartesian method on the scientific discipline alone, this conclusion is correct.

Under a cartesian, scientifical point of view, it would be correct to say that the bruises on her vagina are not proof ox sexual violence.

But under a legal point of view, the bruises found within that evidentiary context are unequivocal proof of sexual violence.

Because the legal point of view does not depend strictly on the scientific quality of the finding. It depends on the capability of the findings to be consistent with each other within a logical evidentiary picture.

When considered under a scientific point of view, alone, bruises on genital area are an ambiguous finding, they can have more than one cause, they are not sufficient evidence of sexual violence.

An argument based on cartesian doubt however, based on the insufficient quality of scientific evidence alone, will be simply rejected by a judge, because such kind of argument given the contxt would be logically pointless within a legal venue.

To any judge, the bruises on the victim's vagina would mean only sexual violence, and they would be evidence of it. And that decisioon would be logically correct. Because when the element is found in that context, within that set of evidence, it only means that and nothing else, from a judicial point of view.

The value and meaning of each piece depends on its context.

Not only that. There are also other considerations to be made, that I can't say all now. For example involving the modernity or accuracy of instruments (methods, research, experts) employed, or about possible criticisms to this or that witness or merits of testimony or opinion.

Imagine for example that the coroner who is called as a witness for the prosecution to give an opinion about the victim's bruises is found out to be a drunk, incompetent guy who makes scientificaly incorrect statements and gives an inconsistent testimony. Imagine he says: "Yes definitely this is 100% proof of sexual violence"; and then, imagine a defence expert instead brings out a more correct table and says: "Look, it's not true, There is 20% of probabilities that this is not the case".

The fact that the coroner gets discredited as an expert, would that change the nature of the evidence, the judge's decision and the outcome of the trial? The answer is: no.
Even if the evidence is imperfect, and even if the witness was inaccurate and presented an opinion that does not match the truth or the best scientific method, may well change nothing. Would change the point of view of from peer-review in that discipline, but the judge in that trial may have good reasons to just come to the same conclusion, that that piece of evidence has only one possible meaning. Its meaning, under a logical point of view, does not depends strictly on its scientific quality nor on the quality of the witnesses. From a legal point of view, the fact that there is a reasonable doubt on a certain scientific, cartesian aspect of a finding, does not affect its value as a piece of circumstantial evidence.
Click to expand...

If I can extend your analogy. A young lady has been out for the night she is seen to be leaving a club with a young man. She goes home. (She lives alone). The next day her parents call round they find her dead, naked and tied to her bed. The police are called. The post mortem finds she had vomitted and aspirated whilst intoxicated. She had signs of vigorous sex with bruising. The young man is identified, and charged with rape and murder. His defence is that they were both drunk they had consensual sex (his defence points out that despite the parents insistence she was a nice girl she had a copy of fifty shades of grey by her bed). She is tied up with her own silk scarf. She said her parents were coming in the morning and he must not leave her tied up, he thought it would be funny to do so. The defence expert points out that the sole evidence of criminal act is the perineal bruising and that is documented in 20% of people in a study of post sexual trauma in consenting sex.

If you were the judge you would convict for murder and rape. (Murder because her death was a consequence of a criminal act). Most people would regard a 20% likelihood of innocence as being reasonable doubt.

(FWIW he was convicted because the prosecution expert was Sir Lancelot Spratt OBE the home office pathologist who insisted that after sixty years of autopsies he could recognise a murder. The defence expert was Dr. Leila Shah from Birmingham who was a bit hesitant, had a Birmingham accent, and quoted lots of figures from studies and journals showing that one could not prove rape from these findings.)

On appeal the high court said the judge had insufficiently emphasised to the jury that expert opinions had to be founded on scientific evidence, a retrial was ordered after seeking a fresh forensic pathology opinion the prosecution withdraw the case.
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
If I can extend your analogy. A young lady has been out for the night she is seen to be leaving a club with a young man. She goes home. (She lives alone). The next day her parents call round they find her dead, naked and tied to her bed. The police are called. The post mortem finds she had vomitted and aspirated whilst intoxicated. She had signs of vigorous sex with bruising. The young man is identified, and charged with rape and murder. His defence is that they were both drunk they had consensual sex (his defence points out that despite the parents insistence she was a nice girl she had a copy of fifty shades of grey by her bed). She is tied up with her own silk scarf. She said her parents were coming in the morning and he must not leave her tied up, he thought it would be funny to do so. The defence expert points out that the sole evidence of criminal act is the perineal bruising and that is documented in 20% of people in a study of post sexual trauma in consenting sex.

If you were the judge you would convict for murder and rape. (Murder because her death was a consequence of a criminal act). Most people would regard a 20% likeihood of innocence as being reasonable doubt.

(FWIW he was convicted because the prosecution expert was Sir Lancelot Spratt OBE the home office pathologist who insisted that after sixty years of autopsies he could recognise a murder. The defence expert was Dr. Leila Shah from Birmingham who was a bit hesitant, had a Birmingham accent, and quoted lots of figures from studies and journals showing that one could not prove rape from these findings.)

On appeal the high court said the judge had insufficiently emphasised to the jury that expert opinions had to be founded on scientific evidence, a retrial was ordered after seeking a fresh forensic pathology opinion the prosecution withdraw the case.
Click to expand...
Planigale you may be interested in reading the Peter Plumley Walker case, prosecuted twice by Simon Moore, now a judge. I attended the odd social function where he willingly discussed the case. It was always obvious it was S and M misadventure, but as always the taxpayer unwittingly shelled out.
 
Dougm said:
Indeed. I think to convict, you need:

A) A scenario where all the pieces of evidence fit -- there is not a piece of reliable evidence that contradicts that scenario
and
B) No alternative scenario that is believable, based on that evidence.

What the court has done in this case is to look at the evidence, having already decided they are guilty. Then they accept the pieces of evidence that indicate guilt, no matter how flimsy or dubious, and hand wave away the pieces of evidence that support an innocent scenario, well, just because.
Click to expand...


If I might be permitted a comparison here, this is pretty much what happened at the Lockerbie trial as well. The investigators pursued a particular theory of the crime, blind to the fact that there was glaring evidence pointing to a different theory. Then when the case came to court, some (though not all) of the evidence for the alternative theory was revealed. The defence submitted that that theory was just as plausible an explanation of the crime as the one in which their clients were guilty.

The defence were right, and their clients should have been acquitted. The judges however reversed the burden of proof and declared that as the other theory wasn't proven to be correct, they would just prefer the prosecution theory thankyouverymuch.

Fifteen years later, and we've finally proved the alternative theory was correct all along. Watch this space.

But it does demonstrate that Italy isn't alone in this behaviour. No matter which country you look at, you see the same mindset. The "presumption of innocence" is far too often a legal fiction that simply doesn't apply in practice.
 
anglolawyer said:
Moi? I am where you are but TBH I am in denial about the downstairs. I want it to be the cat and to have nothing to do with the crime because I already have a GUT that works without it. I don't see Rudy sticking around downstairs after the murder, can't see how the blood can have got down there without being spattered on the way down and I can't see Amanda and Raffaele gaining anything by going down there and mussing things up. But, I admit I don't really want to look.
Click to expand...

He went downstairs with some bloody clothes and a bleeding hand. He washed up the bloody clothes and wrapped them in a sheet. He grabbed some new pants and left.

How is that a problem for your gut?
 
Diocletus said:
He went downstairs with some bloody clothes and a bleeding hand. He washed up the bloody clothes and wrapped them in a sheet. He grabbed some new pants and left.

How is that a problem for your gut?
Click to expand...

He didn't drop any spots of blood from his hand anywhere upstairs or downstairs. How did he know there was a key to downstairs on Meredith's key ring or hanging on a hook (wherever it was she kept the downstairs key) or which one it was? Why didn't he carry out these operations upstairs where there were plenty of sheets and a wash basin (which he used) and why did the cops throw a veil over the episode instead of using it against A & R?

ETA and how did the cops keep the downstairs boys quiet about the state of the place if it was materially changed from the way they left it?
ETA why did he lock the downstairs door when he didn't bother upstairs and what happened to the downstairs key? Was it tossed away or found still she left it (may need Dan O. on this)
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
ETA why did he lock the downstairs door when he didn't bother upstairs and what happened to the downstairs key? Was it tossed away or found still she left it (may need Dan O. on this)
Click to expand...


It should be obvious that we would not know where the downstairs key was kept if it were not for the fact that the key was found in that spot. Any theory of the downstairs being part of the post crime scene must conclude with the perpetrator returning to the upstairs entryway to replace the key and then not locking the front door. What is the motivation for this?
 
Dan O. said:
It should be obvious that we would not know where the downstairs key was kept if it were not for the fact that the key was found in that spot. Any theory of the downstairs being part of the post crime scene must conclude with the perpetrator returning to the upstairs entryway to replace the key and then not locking the front door. What is the motivation for this?
Click to expand...

:D Thank you Dan. I am always wary of channeling you given your occasionally challenging tone but, on this occasion, I am happily right beside behind you asking the same question.
 
Dan O. said:
It should be obvious that we would not know where the downstairs key was kept if it were not for the fact that the key was found in that spot. Any theory of the downstairs being part of the post crime scene must conclude with the perpetrator returning to the upstairs entryway to replace the key and then not locking the front door. What is the motivation for this?
Click to expand...
Dan O
Do you know who found the key?

Amanda has assured me that she was unaware that a key to downstairs was kept there.
Perhaps Meredith was unaware too.
Did Giacomo give Meredith his own key which she then put on her keyring?

We know the upstairs front door was faulty and didn't close on the latch.
But there has been no evidence that the downstairs door was faulty....so the door could simply have been pulled shut on its latch on exit.

The downstairs apartment could have been part of the crime scene.

anglolawyer
Have you seen all this...
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by anglolawyer
Moi? I am where you are but TBH I am in denial about the downstairs. I want it to be the cat and to have nothing to do with the crime because I already have a GUT that works without it. I don't see Rudy sticking around downstairs after the murder, can't see how the blood can have got down there without being spattered on the way down and I can't see Amanda and Raffaele gaining anything by going down there and mussing things up. But, I admit I don't really want to look.

Diocletus: He went downstairs with some bloody clothes and a bleeding hand. He washed up the bloody clothes and wrapped them in a sheet. He grabbed some new pants and left.

How is that a problem for your gut?
Click to expand...

anglolawyer said:
He didn't drop any spots of blood from his hand anywhere upstairs or downstairs. How did he know there was a key to downstairs on Meredith's key ring or hanging on a hook (wherever it was she kept the downstairs key) or which one it was? Why didn't he carry out these operations upstairs where there were plenty of sheets and a wash basin (which he used) and why did the cops throw a veil over the episode instead of using it against A & R?

ETA and how did the cops keep the downstairs boys quiet about the state of the place if it was materially changed from the way they left it?
ETA why did he lock the downstairs door when he didn't bother upstairs and what happened to the downstairs key? Was it tossed away or found still she left it (may need Dan O. on this)
Click to expand...

DANO - It should be obvious that we would not know where the downstairs key was kept if it were not for the fact that the key was found in that spot. Any theory of the downstairs being part of the post crime scene must conclude with the perpetrator returning to the upstairs entryway to replace the key and then not locking the front door. What is the motivation for this?
Click to expand...

There were blood drops leading from the upstairs to the downstairs. And there were human DNA profiles from downstairs, including on a light swutch, which have been suppressed.

Were the keys to the downstairs tested for fingerprints or DNA?

We don't know what forensic evidence existed downstairs, either because it wasn't tested, or the results were suppressed.

The lack of thorough, competent, and honest investigation impedes our understanding and inquiry. We can't even verify that Stef tested a semen stain, found between the legs of a victim of a sexual assault murder.

You can't play gin rummy with half a deck of cards, and think you're having a great game. I want to know what happens, but guessing what is being suppressed, tested or non-tested, present but not found, or misinterpreted by the keystone cops, makes this all a very dicey business - very likely by design.

It's the same reason Mignini delays taking the temperature of the corpse. As a prosecutor, he prefers a wider window for TOD, because he only needs to present a logical story that accounts for the evidence, or so we're told.

The ECHR is desperately needed to straighten out this mess.
 
carbonjam72 said:
There were blood drops leading from the upstairs to the downstairs. And there were human DNA profiles from downstairs, including on a light swutch, which have been suppressed.

Were the keys to the downstairs tested for fingerprints or DNA?

We don't know what forensic evidence existed downstairs, either because it wasn't tested, or the results were suppressed.

The lack of thorough, competent, and honest investigation impedes our understanding and inquiry. We can't even verify that Stef tested a semen stain, found between the legs of a victim of a sexual assault murder.

You can't play gin rummy with half a deck of cards, and think you're having a great game. I want to know what happens, but guessing what is being suppressed, tested or non-tested, present but not found, or misinterpreted by the keystone cops, makes this all a very dicey business - very likely by design.

It's the same reason Mignini delays taking the temperature of the corpse. As a prosecutor, he prefers a wider window for TOD, because he only needs to present a logical story that accounts for the evidence, or so we're told.

The ECHR is desperately needed to straighten out this mess.
Click to expand...

I have seen video footage of these. They are circular in shape (i.e. empty circles) and about the size of a cat's paw. They don't look like what I imagine a cat would leave as print but nor do they look like a human print or a spot of blood dropped from three or four feet. They are spaced out as you would expect for a cat. I have wondered if they were made by a cat with fur sort of overhanging its paw :boggled: such that the bloody fur makes the circular print but that's probably crap I guess. Anyway, check them out for yourself, They have not been suppressed and nobody on either side has made a fuss about them.
 
Dan O. said:
It should be obvious that we would not know where the downstairs key was kept if it were not for the fact that the key was found in that spot. Any theory of the downstairs being part of the post crime scene must conclude with the perpetrator returning to the upstairs entryway to replace the key and then not locking the front door. What is the motivation for this?
Click to expand...

Well, that could be a problem . . . but let's answer these questions first:

1. Is the key found upstairs a key for downstairs? How do we know?

2. When was the upstairs key hung in the hallway, and who put it there? Was it there on Nov. 2?

3. Is the key found upstairs the same key that Meredith would have used to access downstairs, or did she have another key on her key ring, perhaps?

4. Did the boys downstairs have a key hidden outside, that Rudy might have known about and used to access the downstairs apartment . . . for example, perhaps hidden in the enclosure of the window that has the blood drop on it?

BTW, in the recent Maresca document dump there is a record that I wasn't aware of. It describes a post-arrest visit (on Nov. 6) to the cottage by the police with Amanda Knox in custody, without lawyer obviously. The key was "found" on this visit and is recorded as such.
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
I have seen video footage of these. They are circular in shape (i.e. empty circles) and about the size of a cat's paw. They don't look like what I imagine a cat would leave as print but nor do they look like a human print or a spot of blood dropped from three or four feet. They are spaced out as you would expect for a cat. I have wondered if they were made by a cat with fur sort of overhanging its paw :boggled: such that the bloody fur makes the circular print but that's probably crap I guess. Anyway, check them out for yourself, They have not been suppressed and nobody on either side has made a fuss about them.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's the watery blood that dripped through the sheet that Rudy was using to carry his bloody clothing after he rinsed it downstairs and exited the downstairs apartment with the bundle in his hand. We can also see an imprint of this bloody parcel where he placed it down or was assembling it inside, on the tile floor.
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
Oh, that's the watery blood that dripped through the sheet that Rudy was using to carry his bloody clothing after he rinsed it downstairs and exited the downstairs apartment with the bundle in his hand. We can also see an imprint of this bloody parcel where he placed it down or was assembling it inside, on the tile floor.
Click to expand...

You haven't answered any of my questions.
 
anglolawyer said:
He didn't drop any spots of blood from his hand anywhere upstairs or downstairs.
Click to expand...

Yes he did. All over the place: on the knife handle, on the Addidas jacket, on the bra, in the vagina, on the pillow, on the wall, on the door handle, on the purse, and probably elsewhere in the gory mess.

Also, we have photos of his blood downstairs. It's the dark-red spots, not to be confused with the diffuse, watery stuff that is Meredith's blood from the rinsed clothing.

anglolawyer said:
Why didn't he carry out these operations upstairs where there were plenty of sheets and a wash basin (which he used)
Click to expand...

He needed new trousers, and Meredith's weren't practical.

anglolawyer said:
and why did the cops throw a veil over the episode instead of using it against A & R?)
Click to expand...

Rudy's blood downstairs undermines the "staged breakin" and "cleanup" lies.

anglolawyer said:
ETA and how did the cops keep the downstairs boys quiet about the state of the place if it was materially changed from the way they left it?
Click to expand...

I believe that the boys did say that everything was out of order, and anyway, it seems obvious that it was. But, also, the cops had the marijuana plants.

anglolawyer said:
ETA why did he lock the downstairs door when he didn't bother upstairs and what happened to the downstairs key?
Click to expand...

He didn't know the trick of the upstairs door. But, he did lock Meredith's door.

anglolawyer said:
Was it tossed away or found still she left it (may need Dan O. on this)
Click to expand...

Tossed, I would say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom