Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dan O.]

Dan O
Do you know who found the key?

I din't have the name offhand but the account of finding the keys was given in testimony. Just check the list of officers that were searching the cottage on November 6.

The keys wouldn't even be that important if they weren't used in the delibrate campaign to smear Amanda.

Republic - November 14, 2007 Page 17 Section: CHRONICLE [1] (Google translation)
PERUGIA - Two keys connected with a ring. For the investigators have a 'further proof of the guilt of Amanda Knox, accused with Raffaele Sollecito and Patrick Lumumba' s murder of Meredith Kercher. Are key 'apartment below the one where the young Englishman was killed in the evening between the' one and two November. On that ground, with three other boys, lives Giacomo Silenzi, Meredith's boyfriend, on 3 November he had told police: "Before leaving for Porto San Giorgio I gave the keys to my house asking Meredith to disinfect one of my two cats that had injured her ear. " On 6 November, the two keys were found in the chamber of Amanda Knox. Not a clue just because the room of Stephen, one of the three tenants of silence were discovered traces of blood. The four students have vowed to clean the stains left by the injured cat el 'entire house before leaving for vacation of the Bridge of the Dead. I do not know how to explain the traces of blood on the duvet of Stephen - said James Silenzi - just remember that the blood there 'was, and that Stephen had locked the room. " Those traces of blood could be part of the screening, according to investigators, enacted by Amanda and his accomplices to dribble suspects. ​

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?

Giacomo should have been asked if the keys that were found we're the ones that he gave to Meredith. If they weren't then Laura and Filomena should be asked if they know anything about them. Then the landlord needs to be questioned when or if the lock cylinders had been changed.

All this is of course basic police work. But in Italy they aparently first decide who they want to be guilty and then feed false stories to the press to make it true.

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.

This is not true. We know that the police broke the glass on the downstairs door and were still unable to unlatch it. This indicates it was locked with a key

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

The downstairs apartment could have nothing to do with Meredith's murder. But the prosecution should not be permitted to make that determination on their own. All of the evidence collected should be made available to the defense.

 

[Diocletus]

I din't have the name offhand but the account of finding the keys was given in testimony. Just check the list of officers that were searching the cottage on November 6.

The keys wouldn't even be that important if they weren't used in the delibrate campaign to smear Amanda.

Republic - November 14, 2007 Page 17 Section: CHRONICLE [1] (Google translation)
PERUGIA - Two keys connected with a ring. For the investigators have a 'further proof of the guilt of Amanda Knox, accused with Raffaele Sollecito and Patrick Lumumba' s murder of Meredith Kercher. Are key 'apartment below the one where the young Englishman was killed in the evening between the' one and two November. On that ground, with three other boys, lives Giacomo Silenzi, Meredith's boyfriend, on 3 November he had told police: "Before leaving for Porto San Giorgio I gave the keys to my house asking Meredith to disinfect one of my two cats that had injured her ear. " On 6 November, the two keys were found in the chamber of Amanda Knox. Not a clue just because the room of Stephen, one of the three tenants of silence were discovered traces of blood. The four students have vowed to clean the stains left by the injured cat el 'entire house before leaving for vacation of the Bridge of the Dead. I do not know how to explain the traces of blood on the duvet of Stephen - said James Silenzi - just remember that the blood there 'was, and that Stephen had locked the room. " Those traces of blood could be part of the screening, according to investigators, enacted by Amanda and his accomplices to dribble suspects. ​

Hm. November 14. The day before they identified Guede, I think.

So, why would this key discovery be "further proof" against Amanda Knox if the cops really thought the kitty made this mess?

Cat blood behind a locked door? A cat that can use light switches and unlock doors? Only in Perugia.

 

[Dan O.]

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

The trowsers Meredith was wearing were actually from her former boyfriend. Is it possible that Rudy thought he could wear them? They don't appear to have had much blood on them and what is there may be from walking on them after they were removed.

 

[Diocletus]

The trowsers Meredith was wearing were actually from her former boyfriend. Is it possible that Rudy thought he could wear them? They don't appear to have had much blood on them and what is there may be from walking on them after they were removed.

Well, that was a little tongue in cheek. Point being that he needed new pants and downstairs was the place to get them. He even said that he changed his pants. For that matter, he also said that he heard "somebody" downstairs . . . and that person looked just like him.

 

[Numbers]

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.

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.

The first two questions are:
1. What did the police know, and when did they know it?
2. What did the police DO, and when did they DO it?

(And this includes the forensic (non-scientific) police.)

Were Meredith's keys recovered? Did they include the downstairs key? How do we know? This may have been discussed here previously.

A number of the "cat's" blood samples contained human DNA because they replicated under RT-PCR. The PCR is primate (human) specific. Were they profiled, were there any matches?

Where is the record of the antigen-antibody testing that Stefanoni would have needed to have done to identify the species (human, cat, dog, etc.) of the blood?

How many times had Guede visited the downstairs boys - besides the two times we know about (one of these times he met Meredith and Amanda there)? How many times had Guede met the downstairs boys (or any one of them) not in their apartment - say, at basketball (in the piazza or elsewhere)?

Wouldn't the police on Nov. 2 have asked the upstairs survivors present when the police came (Amanda, Filomena) if they knew about a downstairs key or what the extra key present in the upstairs was for?

 

[Diocletus]

A number of the "cat's" blood samples contained human DNA because they replicated under RT-PCR. The PCR is primate (human) specific. Were they profiled, were there any matches?

Yes, some of them were profiled. The results are suppressed.

Where is the record of the antigen-antibody testing that Stefanoni would have needed to have done to identify the species (human, cat, dog, etc.) of the blood?

Nope. Just Stef's good word.

 

[Dan O.]

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

This is what the police tell us. The could be lying, they are after all Italian.

...

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.

Does it say explicitly that Amanda was taken back to the cottage? Was she taken inside? The news had always been that the cottage was searched from the afternoon of November 2 through November 6.

I have in my timeline: "Morning of the 6th, police are back raiding the cottage (Massei Report pg 96)".

 

[Diocletus]

This is what the police tell us. The could be lying, they are after all Italian.





Does it say explicitly that Amanda was taken back to the cottage? Was she taken inside? The news had always been that the cottage was searched from the afternoon of November 2 through November 6.

I have in my timeline: "Morning of the 6th, police are back raiding the cottage (Massei Report pg 96)".

See Item No. 5, here: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...ce-notice-home-search-Via-Pergola-cottage.pdf

I guess it doesn't say that she was there, but they did make her sign it. Weird.

BTW: The cops had interviewed the boys downstairs by this time and would have had their keys. The keys very well could have been hung on the wall by different cops who were at the scene on the 4th or 5th.

 

[Bill Williams]

I had to stop reading Ergon's latest.

He repeated the lie that the Italian police stopped Raffaele at the Austrian border. Couldn't read any farther. There is scarcely any truth, anymore, which comes from that guy.

Isn't it obvious that Raffaele would hold up in Italy, afraid to cross the boarder. Just look at how these armed border patroll guards are scrutinizing every traveller trying to cross the Italian/Austrian boarder:




ETA: if the above is not enough, Trip Advisor has a special page specifically for this crossing: http://www.tripadvisor.com/Travel-g187768-s602/Italy:Crossing.The.Border.html

OMG - the humanity. And to think that Raffaele came back into Italy through all that when he'd heard of the January 2014 conviction.

There but for the grace of God.....

As Ergon ever uttered a true word?

 

[anglolawyer]

He didn't drop any spots of blood from his hand anywhere upstairs or downstairs.

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.

So why have we heard nothing about all the upstairs blood results? I mean, why were the results suppressed?

Why didn't he carry out these operations upstairs where there were plenty of sheets and a wash basin (which he used)

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

But you have him lugging a bed sheet through town from which watery blood is dripping rather than just wearing his less conspicuous damp trousers.

and why did the cops throw a veil over the episode instead of using it against A & R?)

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

How?

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?

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.

If the cops had the downstairs boys by the nuts then they could have stopped Luca yapping about Battisteli viewing the body but they didn't. None of them reported stolen jeans I take it.

ETA why did he lock the downstairs door when he didn't bother upstairs and what happened to the downstairs key?

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

But he surely did not return the key whence he found it and equally he had no way of knowing that the key he took downstairs unlocked the downstairs door.

Was it tossed away or found still she left it (may need Dan O. on this)

Tossed, I would say.

So, we are down one key. That should be in the evidence. It would be if Columbo had investigated the case. He would have ignored the body and kerfuffle upstairs, obsessed about the keys, looked Mignini up and down and bethunk to himself 'that's my man'.

 

[Machiavelli]

Being that the United States (as well as most of the free world) does not define reasonable doubt that way, why should the United States (or most of the free world) extradite to them. Not even trying to be nasty here but such treaties should be null and void.

Edit: There is a very reasonable scenario. . . . .Simply put, Rudy Guede did it alone. All of the evidence supports this scenario. The Italian prosecution scenario is a fantasy just as much as the one against the Norfolk Four is.

It's false. We have well seen the inconsistencies, the evidence does not support that scenario.

P.S. If the US want to annull the treaty, let them do that.

 

[Desert Fox]

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.

Why didn't Guede just break into the downstairs using the key then?

 

[Kauffer]

It's false. We have well seen the inconsistencies, the evidence does not support that scenario.

P.S. If the US want to annull the treaty, let them do that.

You previously stated that Italy is compelled to pursue the extradition of Ms Knox in the event that Cassation upholds the guilty verdicts. Where is the evidence to support this assertion?

Why, for example, did Italy not issue an extradition request for Robert Lady, convicted in Italy (finally) in 2012 in the abduction of Abu Omar and subsequently (but briefly) detained in Panama

Why was Italy not compelled to do so?

"It is not clear why Panamanian authorities decided to arrest him at this time or if Italy would have pushed for his extradition. While the Italian judiciary has been keen to arrest Mr Lady, successive governments have been reluctant to pick a fight with Washington. On news of Mr Lady’s return to the US, an Italian foreign ministry official said: “We respect the decision taken by the Panama authorities”."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/25c2ad8c-f09a-11e2-929c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3S72vOA7P

 

[Diocletus]

So why have we heard nothing about all the upstairs blood results? I mean, why were the results suppressed?

Well, we have the results for vagina, bra and purse. And, we can see the blood in the handprint on the pillow, the knife hilt imprint, the door handle and wall. Offhand, I'm not sure that any results from inside were actively suppressed, unless you count police negligence and incompetence as "suppression".

But you have him lugging a bed sheet through town from which watery blood is dripping rather than just wearing his less conspicuous damp trousers.

I would be just a small bundle. Probably dumped it in the nearest receptacle knowing that the cops were too incompetent to look there.

How?

It looks more like the work of a "real" burglar if somebody entered downstairs as well, especially if that guy left blood traces that doesn't match Knox and Sollecito. Plus, it puts a mess downstairs. Knox and Sollecito wouldn't have gone downstairs and left a mess if they were trying to clean up.

Check Dan O.'s article, above. For a while, they were in fact trying to pin downstairs on Knox, but then downstairs suddenly went away after Rudy was identified.

If the cops had the downstairs boys by the nuts then they could have stopped Luca yapping about Battisteli viewing the body but they didn't. None of them reported stolen jeans I take it.

Was Luca a downstairs guy? Thought he was Filo's BF.

But he surely did not return the key whence he found it and equally he had no way of knowing that the key he took downstairs unlocked the downstairs door.

Yup. He would have had to get pretty lucky . . . or he knew that Meredith would have the key . . . or he knew that a key was hidden in the downstairs window frame.

So, we are down one key. That should be in the evidence. It would be if Columbo had investigated the case. He would have ignored the body and kerfuffle upstairs, obsessed about the keys, looked Mignini up and down and bethunk to himself 'that's my man'.

Unfortunately, they only obsessed about the "keyholders" not the "keys"

 

[Diocletus]

P.S. If the US want to annull the treaty, let them do that.

The treaty gives the Secretary of State absolute discretion over extradition, so all that would need to be done is invoke the terms of the treaty (not "annul" it).

 

[Desert Fox]

It's false. We have well seen the inconsistencies, the evidence does not support that scenario.
P.S. If the US want to annull the treaty, let them do that.

"You keep saying those words. . . . . I don't think they mean what you think they mean"

I think at some of the American posters will know where I got that quote from.

I really don't understand your position. It is much like debating with a creationist where they argue that evolution is inconsistent with the evidence and all I can see is that they are nuts.

I am sure that those that argue that Guede murdered Meredeth alone do not have all the details exactly right. . . . One almost never does but everything seems to fit reasonably well.

You claim that the evidence does not fit the scenario of Guede murdering Meredeth alone. You don't seem to give any real concrete arguments as far as that but instead seem to assert without evidence.

In addition, a wide number of experts all argue that the evidence does fit Guede doing the crime alone. If there was something I am not seeing, they give a number of expert eyes that should see what I don't see.

Edit: As far as what I am arguing, what I am arguing is that any country which extradites to Italy needs to have their own fact finding trial to make sure that the person is guilty and not accept Italy's word for that. I would be cool with other countries treating it the same way as well.

 

[Machiavelli]

Not really Mach. It's a threshold. In a soccer match the defence is four guys and a goalkeeper. The goal itself is not part of the defence. The attacking team still has to score whether there is a defence or not and the prosecution must likewise erase all reasonable doubt regardless of any defence.

Your second sentence is oddly worded. It still looks like you think the defence must establish doubt rather than that the prosecution should eliminate it.

In fact I am specifically talking about lines of defence.
Reasonable doubt is a criterion for the judge, but it is also a possible line of defence. And this is what I am talking about.

Because I am talking with advocates, who are basically pushing a defensive argumentation.
Such argumentation is theoretically a possible defensive argument.

What I am saying is that the arguments brought by the advocates are not effective a holding this line of defence.
Things like criticising the fact that Stefanoni didn't prove she had clean gloves, is not a kind of argument capable of producing a reasonable doubt.
So the general rule: a mere observation about the fact that pieces of circumstantial evidence are not perfect, itself is not a logical argument for reasonable doubt.

It is not true that the accusation (prosecution but also judges and parties, not prosecution alone) must overcome reasonable doubt on single pieces of evidence. The concept of reasonable doubt applies only to the comprehensive set of the whole evidence, whereas the existence of limits or imperfections of the single pieces of evidence, itself is not an argument capable to hold back against the set of evidence overall.

A set of imperfect pieces of information - pieces that have "holes" - under the logical point of view, is perfectly able to support a conclusion that has no doubt nor holes.
This is a rule of logical inference, and it is the concept at the root of circumstantial evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

You previously stated that Italy is compelled to pursue the extradition of Ms Knox in the event that Cassation upholds the guilty verdicts. Where is the evidence to support this assertion?

Why, for example, did Italy not issue an extradition request for Robert Lady, convicted in Italy (finally) in 2012 in the abduction of Abu Omar and subsequently (but briefly) detained in Panama

Why was Italy not compelled to do so?

"It is not clear why Panamanian authorities decided to arrest him at this time or if Italy would have pushed for his extradition. While the Italian judiciary has been keen to arrest Mr Lady, successive governments have been reluctant to pick a fight with Washington. On news of Mr Lady’s return to the US, an Italian foreign ministry official said: “We respect the decision taken by the Panama authorities”."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/25c2ad8c-f09a-11e2-929c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3S72vOA7P

Whereas it would be a straightforward wrongful conviction if Cassazione confirms Nencini.....

It would be political insanity to pursue extradition. First of all it would highlight that Raffaele was paying a price. No doubt the pro-guilt PR campaign would try to taunt Amanda for that....

But it would probably result in forcing the Americans to do something other than say a simply, polite and "with all due respect: no."

If (and when) the State Department actually articulated reasons for the refusal, that would up the pressure within Italy about what befell Raffaele. That would be a powerful political card for America to play.

Apologies for putting it this way, but regardless of what happens to Amanda, the Americans would have a field day exposing what had happened to **Raffaele** as a reason not to extradite Amanda.

Italy would be stupid to go there.

 

[Machiavelli]

"You keep saying those words. . . . . I don't think they mean what you think they mean"

I think at some of the American posters will know where I got that quote from.

I really don't understand your position. It is much like debating with a creationist where they argue that evolution is inconsistent with the evidence and all I can see is that they are nuts.

I am sure that those that argue that Guede murdered Meredeth alone do not have all the details exactly right. . . . One almost never does but everything seems to fit reasonably well.

You claim that the evidence does not fit the scenario of Guede murdering Meredeth alone. You don't seem to give any real concrete arguments as far as that but instead seem to assert without evidence.

(...)

True I don't spend all my time doing that (and i'm afraid it would be wasted, given the interlocutors).
But some pages ago I just reminded a few of the contradictions. For example: the inconsistencies when you get to Guede stepping on the pillowcase and the alleged semen stain, the absence of drips of bloody water out of the shower and along the corridoor, the lack of shoe tracks of the alleged walk back of Guede, the bruises on genital area incompatible with post delictum sexual violence, the lack of bloody handprints on Meredith's body, the inconsistency when you try to explain the timing of the stepping on blood with his shoe (before or after washing his trousers in the bathroom?), etc.

Not to speak about the impossibility to fit ("equally well") a one assailant scenario with the autopsy report and the blood splatter analysis. Or the contradiction with Capezzali and Monacchia's testimony of a scream and (Capezzali) steps on the gravel path immediately after.

The obvious existence of two sets of prints, showintg two sets of opposites (two modus operandi): assailants who are wearing shoes, are "dirty" and don't clean the scene, have bloody hands, leave traces in full blood, don't care about leaving tracks, leaves prints that are in a complete trail, used the big bathroom, walked directly away from the room to the exit, and leave tracks belonging to a single individual; and traces of people who are "clean", are barefoot, leave traces in diluted blood (or diluted luminol positive substance), wash themselves in the bathroom, do not walk away towards the exit but remain inside within an area of the house, used the small bathroom, leave tracks that are isolated and not in a trail, they didn't walk but shuffled using a rag or a towel, and apparently took care about cleaning the corridoor floor (attept to wash bathmat, washed away Guede's print), and they left traces from two different individuals.

The above sets of traces are a "two logical sets", there is an orderly series of dychotomies, a polarization that defines two different sets of findings: two different "kinds" of activities, two kinds of perpetrators (two modus operandi).

These are examples, about what "evidence" means to me in this case.

All those are concrete arguments.

The bathmat print and the luminol prints are other arguments themselves.

The illogical point of entry - a scenario where the alleged burglar doesn't care about taking the easiest way in - does not work "equally well" than a common scenario of burglary, thus not equally well as a staging.

And so on.

The elements are so many.
And their probative power is massive.

 

[Diocletus]

You previously stated that Italy is compelled to pursue the extradition of Ms Knox in the event that Cassation upholds the guilty verdicts. Where is the evidence to support this assertion?

Why, for example, did Italy not issue an extradition request for Robert Lady, convicted in Italy (finally) in 2012 in the abduction of Abu Omar and subsequently (but briefly) detained in Panama

Why was Italy not compelled to do so?

"It is not clear why Panamanian authorities decided to arrest him at this time or if Italy would have pushed for his extradition. While the Italian judiciary has been keen to arrest Mr Lady, successive governments have been reluctant to pick a fight with Washington. On news of Mr Lady’s return to the US, an Italian foreign ministry official said: “We respect the decision taken by the Panama authorities”."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/25c2ad8c-f09a-11e2-929c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3S72vOA7P

Desert Fox has brought up the Pietro Venezia case, in which Italy refused to extradite a guy even though the death penalty was taken off the table by the prosecutor. I think they tried the guy themselves, and then let him out of jail early. Doesn't seem to have caused much of a ripple, so I'm not sure that the moon has to fall from the sky when discretion is exercised not to extradite.

Putting that aside, didn't the Italians know the US had the DP when they negotiated the extradition treaty? So what's up with suddenly putting a gloss on the treaty that prohibits extradition in capital cases? Why can't the US then do the same for a case where the defendant was smacked around, nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel was used, and/or there has been double jeopardy?