Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

Did anybody check the "cats had a party" theory? I think not! People have wondered what happened to those pot plants, maybe they had nibbles out of them???

This is a serious question. Cats are notorious pot heads.

 

[Dougm]

PS - In case you do not have these vidz,
well download, save and view them already!!!
Maybe you'll help find an overlooked clue...

Here's the link from Metho's awhile back.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10276559&postcount=4068

What is surprising is that they recorded the evidence collection, leaving a permanent record of how piss poor a job they did.

Yet, no recording of the interrogations!

I guess the cops that did the interrogating have a better understanding of what they were "up to" than Stef's team did.

 

[platonov]

Confusion reigns

I've finally figured out the point to your seemingly random, cryptic posts. You think, because some of AK and RS's statements don't match in all details, that means they are guilty. No evidence needed. And that everyone that does not agree with that is somehow part of some conspiracy.

Good luck with that.

No I don’t think so. It appears I didn’t get my point across with sufficient clarity.
The fault is obviously mine but that’s as simple as I can make it.
No matter. We will have to wait for MichealB’s response to see if it was too cryptic for him.

ps I don’t think it’s a conspiracy, a confederacy perhaps.

 

[Diocletus]

I'm not afraid to ask for directions, err, I mean some help!

Check this out,
am I totally off the wall or trippin?

Can an investigator coughing into his gloved hand possibly contaminate a crime scene?

Here's the deal,
I'm taking a break from editing surfpix,
and somethin' is botherin' me, once again, about this horrible murder and rape case we discuss.


What am I bothered by now, ya might ask?
Coughing Boy, I'll call him.

Coughing Boy is part of Polizia Scientica,
it seems, they being the crew who come out and collect evidence in terrible crimes.

Coughing Boy is apparently seen a buncha times in the Crime Scene vidz, he's 1 of the crew.
Works a lot at the scene, many, many hours it appears.

Here he is at 6:14:25 pm coughing onto his hand,
which appears, to me at least, to have a glove on as they work on a bloody napkin outside downstairs right near the boyz kitchen doorway, near where bloody watery drops are on the stairs that Diocletus has written about.
This is also when Dr. Stefanoni can be telling her assistant Alessi to test the seminal fluid stains:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9564[/qimg]

Here is Coughing Boy again,
53 seconds later, at 6:15:18 pm
this photo shows him better:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9565[/qimg]


Check it out,
here, most likely, is the Coughing Boy again, many hours earlier,
at 1:22:34 am in Miss Kercher's bedroom,
as Dr. Stefanoni hand grabs and holds aloft Meredith's bloodied bra:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9566[/qimg]


Now I have not seen the uncut full version of the crime Scene video's.
maybe Coughing Boy never coughs again.

But if he does so,
and his DNA is 1 of those 4 unidentified male contributers on Miss Kercher's bra clasp,
I'd say that the Miss Kercher's Bra Clasp was contaminated, wouldn't you?
RW



PS - In case you do not have these vidz,
well download, save and view them already!!!
Maybe you'll help find an overlooked clue...

Here's the link from Metho's awhile back.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10276559&postcount=4068

Be warned,
the 1st vid is sad,
you can tell that Miss Kercher,
having been murdered and raped,
is still lying under the duvet,
+ the Polizia Scientifica are heard laughing at times...

I'm interested in that window behind coughing boys head. Do you think the boys might have hidden their door key there, and Rudy knew about it?

 

[Bill Williams]

No I don’t think so. It appears I didn’t get my point across with sufficient clarity.
The fault is obviously mine but that’s as simple as I can make it.
No matter. We will have to wait for MichealB’s response to see if it was too cryptic for him.

ps I don’t think it’s a conspiracy, a confederacy perhaps.

I am wondering if you have an opinion on why no prosecutor, no judge, nor even Amanda Knox herself knows anything about Raffaele turning on her. That would seem to be an important point to make in a motivations' report, or in a prosecutor's closing. No book that has been written - by Knox, Sollecito, Dempsey, Follain or anyone claims that Raffaele has turned on Knox.

 

[Desert Fox]

I am wondering if you have an opinion on why no prosecutor, no judge, nor even Amanda Knox herself knows anything about Raffaele turning on her. That would seem to be an important point to make in a motivations' report, or in a prosecutor's closing. No book that has been written - by Knox, Sollecito, Dempsey, Follain or anyone claims that Raffaele has turned on Knox.

Platonov got it from Sylvia Browne

 

[Strozzi]

That will be the prosecution's theory if it gets sent back for another appeal.

If the case is sent back for another appeal and the prosecution has to explain why Raffaele's kitchen knife does not pass the evidence test, it will be because there were three knives used in the murder. Amanda discarded it and it has not yet been found.

Maybe the police can find a witness who will come forward now, years after the crime, who will claim he saw Amanda carrying a smaller knife in her hand late that night. Maybe Rudy will be that witness. He can now recall that that silhouette that sort-of-looked-like Amanda had a knife in her hand - a small one about the size of the bloody knife outline on the victim's bed sheet.

 

[Bill Williams]

If the case is sent back for another appeal and the prosecution has to explain why Raffaele's kitchen knife does not pass the evidence test, it will be because there were three knives used in the murder. Amanda discarded it and it has not yet been found.

Maybe the police can find a witness who will come forward now, years after the crime, who will claim he saw Amanda carrying a smaller knife in her hand late that night. Maybe Rudy will be that witness. He can now recall that that silhouette that sort-of-looked-like Amanda had a knife in her hand - a small one about the size of the bloody knife outline on the victim's bed sheet.

I'm holding out for the two-cartwheel theory. Just saying.

 

[Strozzi]

I'm holding out for the two-cartwheel theory. Just saying.

By Jove, you've solved the case. That is why there are no footprints of Amanda in the victim's room and hallway. Amanda did cartwheels down the hall to the bathroom!

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Popper from PMF just discovered this

"""probably someone already mentioned it

Amanda Knox, born 9 July
Jodi Arias, born 9 July
Thomas Dillon, born 9 July (serial killer)
OJ Simpson, born 9 July

a person very close to me was born on 9 July, the above is certainly a coincidence, after all there are thousands of killers ... but I will watch knives when this person is around"""

Disclosure of interest I was born 10th july.

The more significant issue is the prurience these people display. If anything the opposite should be proposed, that one or more of these people must be statistically innocent.
(Maybe it is Amanda Knox)

-

Around 13 million people (rounded down) were born on July 9th. Do the Math yourself:

Population of the earth/365 = 13 million plus

As a matter of fact, each of us probably know at least two people (if not more) who were born on the same day,

d

-

 

[Strozzi]

-


-

Around 13 million people (rounded down) were born on July 9th. Do the Math yourself:

Population of the earth/365 = 13 million plus

As a matter of fact, each of us probably know at least two people (if not more) who were born on the same day,

d

-

Vibio brought up the birthdate coincides last July, as if having the same birthday meant something. Causing me last July to ask if Vibio is aware July 29 is Mignini's and Mussolini's birthday?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Vibio brought up the birthdate coincides last July, as if having the same birthday meant something. Causing me last July to ask if Vibio is aware July 29 is Mignini's and Mussolini's birthday?

-

That explains a lot, ha ha.

That, of course, all depends on whether you believe in a fantasy cartwheel world where everyone born on the same day are all psychologically alike,

d

-

 

[Dan O.]

Where is the evidence of multiple cats?

Republic - November 14, 2007 Page 17 Section: CHRONICLE (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. "​

 

[Numbers]

Republic - November 14, 2007 Page 17 Section: CHRONICLE (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. "​

So the claim is that the cat with the bleeding ear rubbed against the light switch, right?

 

[Dan O.]

So the claim is that the cat with the bleeding ear rubbed against the light switch, right?

Who made that claim?

 

[Desert Fox]

Republic - November 14, 2007 Page 17 Section: CHRONICLE (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. "​

So the claim is that the cat with the bleeding ear rubbed against the light switch, right?

At least some evidence that there was a cat which was injured. . . .That is something

 

[Numbers]

Who made that claim?

My comment about a claim for the light switch blood was satirical.

The problem with the attribution of the downstairs blood to "cat" is that a number of the samples of this blood DNA-replicated, under primate-specific PCR, and apparently DNA profiles were obtained and suppressed. Cat blood DNA could not replicate under primate-specific PCR.

One might argue that the DNA being replicated was human and was obtained from the substrate (surface) under the alleged cat blood. But why are the profiles being suppressed? And in fact, there is no way to know, based upon a forensic test, that the alleged cat blood was indeed cat blood, without a scientifically valid test.

The assertion that the blood was cat blood is merely an assumption, similar logically to the assumption of the staged break-in. There is no record from the police forensic lab of a test, such as a negative confirmatory test for human blood, that would exclude the alleged cat blood from being human. There is no record that a test demonstrating that it was cat blood was performed - nor is any such cat or dog blood specific test commercially available, AFAIK. (Apparently there is little or no demand to investigate the species responsible for blood stains which are tested and shown to be non-human.)

ETA: I believe it is probable that Guede entered the downstairs apartment using a key and left blood from his injured hand on the light switch. The other blood stains are either from Meredith's blood, diluted with water, dripping from his clothes, or from his hand or, possibly, from his knife.

 

[MichaelB]

Excellent, MichaelB. Good work.

After 4+ years of the cartwheel spinning furiously and getting nowhere you have managed to make the connection between (& find a timeline for) RS’s betrayal and AK’s false accusation.

According to her book she falsely accused PL after RS threw her under the bus.
So far so good. If only this info had been incorporated into the IFC/Wb theory earlier think what might have been achieved. Still better late than never.

One not so minor point. I am familiar with much of AK’s testimony. While she addresses the betrayal by RS [ June 2009 in response to Maresca IIRC] she doesn’t actually connect this with her false accusation. Do you have a cite for this.
Platonov has the (annoying apparently ) habit of being right in these matters but perhaps I have overlooked something

Now moving on.
RS has also written a book I believe. Does he place his disavowal of AK before her false accusation.
Do their stories (in the books ) match ?
AFAICS he is not very clear on this. He says

“When I first found out what Amanda had signed her name to, I was furious. Okay, she was under a lot of pressure, as I had been, but how could she just invent stuff out of nowhere? Why would she drag me into something I had no part of?”

It doesn’t sound like he is admitting that his ‘disavowal’ was the cause of the false accusation.
What time does he give for his withdrawal of the alibi and claim that his earlier lies were AK’s idea?

You:

you have managed to make the connection between (& find a timeline for) RS’s betrayal and AK’s false accusation.

That according to the detective and interpreter in the room had nothing to do with it. You believe that's the reason she named Lumumba even though the cops said she wasn't told and that's not their version of events at all.

What they've written in their books really doesn't matter. It's about what people said in the courtroom. I don't even need to know Amanda's version to know the naming of Lumumba was connected to the discovery of the missing text and the "see you later" reply because that's what the cops said. (And it also lines up with what she said)

FICARRA: Yes. Certainly. See you later. Good evening. (Certo. Ci vediamo più tardi. Buona serata). It was the only message of that evening, and we asked who this Patrick was, and this seemed to us an appointment, see you later, certainly, in response to another message. We did not find any messages received around that time, so we did not find the message to which she was responding. We found only that one sent by her. She, in the moment in which was, she was given the mobile into her hand, so it was said who is this person, so did you go out later or not, she said the name of Patrick Lumumba and gave the declaration that then …

FICARRA: We asked her what this message meant, because at seeing the message, it was a message of response to another, because otherwise you wouldn’t write certainly, would you? What was the tone of the message, if that meant she had an appointment, if then she left after receiving the message or remained at home, other than explain who was Patrick and confirm who he was.

~Transcript February 28, 2009

Lorena Zugarini

Question: She was shown the copy of the message taken from the cellphone.
Lorena Zugarini: The SMS on Amanda Knox’s cellphone.
Question: And then?
Lorena Zugarini: Yes, she was asked for explanations regarding the text, certainly, see you later, good evening (Certo, ci vediamo più tardi, buona serata). We asked her who Patrick was. In that moment Amanda shed tears, whether she was crying sincerely, honestly, I don’t know, however she shed tears
~Transcript February 28, 2009

The police said everything was normal. She was giving them the names of people Meredith knew for them to check out. At no point was she trying to hint it was Lumumba, Guede or anyone else.

FICARRA: Yes, to understand, as she told me things that I was not quick enough to write therefore I had necessarily written them later in a note. I’m coming to this to say that, on that evening, therefore, she understood my intentions and said to me: “Ok, I will tell you the names of other persons”. I invited her myself to look at her mobile phone, at the phone contacts list. I said: “Bring someone to your mind, remember someone”. It’s not possible that no one ever entered this house, or only two people. Tell me who might have known her.
So she ran through her contacts list and started to look at a series of numbers, then she remembered and said to me, “Look, it’s comes back, there were another four or five people that I know who knew her, some of these actually came to the house, some of them I brought in myself”. She gave me the references of telephone numbers and for some she also gave me other references of the area where he might live. In particular of Patrick Lumumba, she gave me the particulars of where, of the area where he might live.

If you believe Amanda when she said she was told about Raffaele then that means Zugarini and Donnino are lying. Why are they lying and what else are they lying about?

If you believe the cops then why would she have this emotional break down and tell them it was Lumumba when she'd already told them about him earlier? Why would she place herself at the scene when she was seen by Popovic and was watching a movie somewhere else?

 

[LondonJohn]

What platonov is (purposely) missing is that both AK and RS were operating that night from what they were being told the other was saying.

Again, read their books. More important read their appeals documents. But why let them get in the way of a good lie!

Platonov continues to claim that RS has thrown AK under a bus. Yet nowhere does RS actually do that and more importantly nowhere (post interrogation) does AK think he's done that.

Not even the courts or the prosecutors now claim RS is doing that. Just platonov.

If it were not for the pro-guilt lobby, this falsehood would have died long ago.

Well, more accurately, what appears to have happened in the 5/6 November interrogation of Sollecito was this: the police appear to have gone into that interrogation with the predetermined plan to "break" Sollecito, since they (the police and PM) were by now convinced that a) Knox had been directly involved in the murder, and b) Sollecito was lying to protect her. I believe that there was a carefully-orchestrated plan for that night, which involved firstly getting Sollecito to admit that Knox had left his apartment on the night of the murder, then confronting Knox with this and other "evidence", and getting her in turn to break, admit her involvement, and name everyone else involved.

I think (with reference to what little we know about Sollecito's interrogation from the trial references and Sollecito's own account) that the police confronted Sollecito with the "fact" that they had absolute proof that Knox had been involved in the murder. I think they told him that not only would he be a fool to keep trying to "protect" her, he would actually be committing a serious criminal offence. I think they told him that it was now strongly in his own self-interest to "tell them the truth" about the night of the murder, and that they tried further to drive a wedge between him and Knox by asking him why he would want to protect a vicious murderer (and that he obviously didn't know the "real Knox, etc).

I think that under the weight of that pressure, Sollecito underwent a period of serious cognitive dissonance, where he was trying to reconcile his (hazy) memory of that evening/night (that Knox had been with him all the time) with the apparent unambiguous certainty being told to him by the police that Knox had been present at - and had participated in - the murder. He was faced with his own fallible memory on the one hand, and the directly contradictory "hard evidence" on the other hand, with the added knowledge that if he stuck to his version of events but turned out to be wrong about his memory, he faced very serious consequences.

And this, in my opinion, is exactly how and why Sollecito came to "re-imagine" the events of the evening/night of 1st November. He found he could come to no other conclusion than that his memory was fallible, since it was directly contradicted by what he believed was inarguable physical evidence of Knox's presence at the murder. He therefore began to convince himself that elements of what he'd thought (correctly) had applied to the previous night (31st October) had in fact taken place on the night of the murder. And he then distorted the picture further to allow for Knox to have left him for long enough to participate in the murder, since he now believed that this simply had to have happened (because the police told him they had proof that it had happened).

 

[LondonJohn]

And platonov (and others) still appear unable to decipher the argument being employed by Sollecito's legal team in the most recent press conference. But here it is, yet again:

1) Sollecito knows he had absolutely nothing to do with the murder.

2) Sollecito believes Knox also had nothing to do with it.

3) But Sollecito cannot be logically certain of this, for obvious reasons related to metaphysics and consciousness.

4) Despite all the above, the Italian courts have, in their wisdom, decided there's sufficient proof to find both Knox and Sollecito guilty of the murder.

5) But in their "proof", one of the key elements involves Knox cooking up the scheme with Guede in the absence of Sollecito.

6) And therefore, if the courts are using this logic to convict Knox, it also directly suggests the non-participation of Sollecito.


In simple summary, Sollecito's argument here is that neither he nor Knox had anything to do with the murder, but if the courts are going to (mistakenly, in Sollecito's opinion) decide that certain evidence is part of the proof of guilt of Knox, then that same evidence is actually indicative of the non-participation of Sollecito. Basically, Sollecito is pointing out that the courts have caught themselves in a logical closed loop.