Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

I thought Selene was the main character in the Underworld movies, played by Kate Beckingsale.

 

[Numbers]

2+2=? (it's not 5 if in base 10)

Quote:
69. A “reasonable suspicion” that a criminal offence has been committed presupposes the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed an offence (Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, § 88; Erdagöz v. Turkey, § 51; Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, § 32). Therefore, a failure by the authorities to make a genuine inquiry into the basic facts of a case in order to verify whether a complaint was well-founded disclosed a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) (Stepuleac v. Moldova, § 73; Elçi and Others v. Turkey, § 674)​

On the night of the 5th the PLE thought the break in was staged for several reasons including "nothing missing", what they thought was an illogical entry point, and what appeared to them a phony tossing of the room. They thought they had a match for the bloody shoe prints. Though Raf's interviews have never been released I don't doubt that he wasn't clear or articulate about the evening. At the time they thought Raf had call the Carabinieri after the PP had arrived. They had a text (Anglo thinks both incoming and outgoing) that they interpreted to mean "don't come to work" and "okay see you in a little while" which would she was lying about being at Raf's all night. They were the ones that found the crime.



Are you suggesting Amanda wasn't a suspect? Sounds much like what the PLE said about the interview until she made her statement.

According to ECHR case-law, persons are arrested on the basis of "reasonable suspicion" which is not simply being a "suspect" meaning, hey, let's put 2+2=5 and arrest this person.

There actually needs to be some forensic and police work done. There was no establishment of a staged break-in by evidence. Likewise, the rest of the "suspicions" are hypotheses without evidence. They could have interviewed Amanda about the specific questions. When in the interrogation they asked her questions and she answered truthfully, they did not accept the answers. They threatened her and hit her. That is illegal.

That is bad faith. That is not "reasonable suspicion".

Your list of PLE reasons for suspicion is significantly different from the arrest warrant prepared by PM Mignini. That document relied primarily on the statements made by Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the interrogation. It is the arrest warrant that describes the "reasonable suspicion" justifying the arrest. See:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-case-transcripts/
Decree for Arrest Nov 06, 2007

Here's the beginning of the rationale from that warrant (English translation):

For that which concerns KNOX and DIYA, the former gave conspicuously contradictory and improbable deposition in the course of the investigation. In particular, KNOX affirmed to have spent the night between the 1st and 2nd of November in the company of SOLLECITO Raffaele, met by her only a few days before the fact, while he, after initially confirming KNOX's declarations, confessed to have lied according to KNOX's direction and clarified as having separated from KNOX at 9:30PM on the 1st of November 2007, remaining in his residence where he received a call on his land-line from his father at 11:30PM. Furthermore, by the data relative to the cell phone traffic of the number 3484673590, in use by KNOX, emerges a void of traffic from 8:35PM of the 1st of November to 12:00PM of the 2nd of November. There is an analogous void of cell phone traffic from 8:42PM of November 1st to 6:02AM of November 2nd found in the traffic for the number 3403574303 in use by SOLLECITO Raffaele. A text message was found to have been sent at 8:35PM of November 1st by KNOX's number 3484673590 to 3387195723, that of her co-defendant Patrick, in which she wrote "Ci vediamo dopo" ["See you later" or lit: "We'll see each other after"] thus confirming that in the following hours KNOX would find herself with Patrick in the apartment where the victim was.

ETA: Without the false statements obtained during the coercive interrogation, the information in the warrant is totally ambiguous IMO. And the police - who work under the prosecutor - should have found out what "see you later" means in English. They did not accept Amanda's explanation. Furthermore, the "good night" part of her text is not included in the text of the warrant.

All that demonstrates bad faith. That is not "reasonable suspicion".

 

[Samson]

Evidence? If it's just something that Selene said, I wouldn't necessarily put too much store in it.

The friend that has been mentioned is Natalie Hayward. Evidence? Not sure. I think it is probably true.
The more important point is that not one of the acquaintances or friends Amanda made in Italy has ever contacted her, by her own assertion, so one might conclude every one of them is brain dead and of poor character.

 

[Strozzi]

. . .
Do you believe they were framing Raf and Amanda from the very beginning? The 3rd? The 4th?
I continue to default to incompetence. They thought they had the case solved and arrested the perps.

I don't see any indication that the PLE were framing anybody initially. The first indication that might be a frame up was seizing randomly the large kitchen knife from Raffaele's kitchen drawer at 2 in the morning the night of the interrogations, Nov 5/6. The police had searched outside for the murder knife for several days beforehand. When the interrogators took Raffaele to his flat, an hour or so after excitedly seizing Raffaele's shoes due to circles in the tread pattern, I believe the police likely intended seize something more to tie Raffaele to the crime. I think they likely intended to 'find me a knife'. They had no criteria - no size, no blade width, no blade taper, nada - any sharp knife meaner-looking than a butter knife would do. It became the alleged probable murder weapon and Stefanoni then had to confirm it, which she loyally did by manipulating her lab DNA analysis processes to fabricate the finding of the victim's blood on the blade (Frame up, #2.)

Later in court the police officer (Finzi ?) who seized the knife was caught lying on just what criteria he used to determine it was possibly the murder weapon. He had no criteria. That night any knife would serve.

 

[Strozzi]

. . .
Do you believe they were framing Raf and Amanda from the very beginning? The 3rd? The 4th?
I continue to default to incompetence. They thought they had the case solved and arrested the perps.

I don't see any indication that the PLE were framing anybody early on. The first indication that might be a frame up was seizing randomly the large kitchen knife from Raffaele's kitchen drawer at 2 in the morning the night of the interrogations, Nov 5/6. The police had searched outside for the murder knife for several days beforehand. When the interrogators took Raffaele to his flat, an hour or so after just excitedly seizing Raffaele's shoes due to circles in the tread pattern, I believe the police likely intended seize something more to tie Raffaele to the crime. I think they likely intended to 'find me a knife'. They had no criteria - no length, no blade width, no blade shape, nada - any sharp knife meaner-looking than a butter knife would do. It became the alleged probable murder weapon and Stefanoni then had to confirm it, which she loyally did by manipulating her lab DNA analysis processes to fabricate the finding of the victim's blood on the blade (Frame up, #2.)

 

[Grinder]

Your list of PLE reasons for suspicion is significantly different from the arrest warrant prepared by PM Mignini. That document relied primarily on the statements made by Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the interrogation. It is the arrest warrant that describes the "reasonable suspicion" justifying the arrest. See:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-case-transcripts/
Decree for Arrest Nov 06, 2007

Here's the beginning of the rationale from that warrant (English translation):

For that which concerns KNOX and DIYA, the former gave conspicuously contradictory and improbable deposition in the course of the investigation. In particular, KNOX affirmed to have spent the night between the 1st and 2nd of November in the company of SOLLECITO Raffaele, met by her only a few days before the fact, while he, after initially confirming KNOX's declarations, confessed to have lied according to KNOX's direction and clarified as having separated from KNOX at 9:30PM on the 1st of November 2007, remaining in his residence where he received a call on his land-line from his father at 11:30PM. Furthermore, by the data relative to the cell phone traffic of the number 3484673590, in use by KNOX, emerges a void of traffic from 8:35PM of the 1st of November to 12:00PM of the 2nd of November. There is an analogous void of cell phone traffic from 8:42PM of November 1st to 6:02AM of November 2nd found in the traffic for the number 3403574303 in use by SOLLECITO Raffaele. A text message was found to have been sent at 8:35PM of November 1st by KNOX's number 3484673590 to 3387195723, that of her co-defendant Patrick, in which she wrote "Ci vediamo dopo" ["See you later" or lit: "We'll see each other after"] thus confirming that in the following hours KNOX would find herself with Patrick in the apartment where the victim was.

ETA: Without the false statements obtained during the coercive interrogation, the information in the warrant is totally ambiguous IMO. And the police - who work under the prosecutor - should have found out what "see you later" means in English. They did not accept Amanda's explanation. Furthermore, the "good night" part of her text is not included in the text of the warrant.

All that demonstrates bad faith. That is not "reasonable suspicion".

They had all I said when they did the interrogation and the "confessions" and lies are what they had for sure in their minds. They clearly thought they had the murderers and they arrested them. Think about it. If Raf said what they said he said combined with Amanda's I think most would think they at least involved. Like that 777?

Do you think the PLE framed them from day one? Why?

 

[RoseMontague]

They had all I said when they did the interrogation and the "confessions" and lies are what they had for sure in their minds. They clearly thought they had the murderers and they arrested them. Think about it. If Raf said what they said he said combined with Amanda's I think most would think they at least involved. Like that 777?

Do you think the PLE framed them from day one? Why?

I think Kaosium had it right. Two lines of investigation, the correct one discarded after the interrogation.

 

[Strozzi]

Then this.....


This reply to Numbers actually expresses well the dilemma of trusting ANYTHING the PLE said about why they brought Raffaele in for a late night, Nov 5th "interview"/interrogation.

The only unknown is what they expected Knox to do if/when Raffaele was brought in. One cop said he ordered both brought in! But it was also reasonable to expect Knox would come along, either that, it was reasonable that a "flying squad" would have gone and grabbed her out of Raffaele's bed in the middle of the night..... as they eventually did when they broke down Lumumba's door.

Be that as it may, the duality/dilemma is expressed well here. The PLE had to have BOTH narratives ready, both available for immediate roll-out depending on how it played:

1) because on Nov 2nd (as Mignini was later to say) the break-in was obviously a staging, they thought they had a match for shoe prints, they thought Raf had called 1-1-2 AFTER the postals' arrival..... therefore they are suspects when being brought in late Nov 5th,

2) but, the PLE had to have available that Amanda (or Raffaele for that matter) was not a suspect until she blabbed about Lumumba, because of the SMS texts.... therefore they weren't suspects until Amanda formally signed the 1:45 am statement.​

Both narratives had to be in play and available. It's actually still unclear, post-exoneration, which narrative each individual PLE participant will take into their own court cases, if it ever gets that far.

Charge the lot of them with calunnia, and see what happens when they testify. That is, unless there is some sort of prosecutorial immunity....

The police certainly knew that Amanda's mother was flying from Seattle to Rome on Nov 6. They would have known this from secretly monitoring Amanda's phone conversations (or emails) and/or from learning of it from Amanda directly or in conversation with others such as Raffaele, Filomena, or Laura. Amanda certainly would have told any of them, including the police in whose presence she cooperatively waited for hours and hours each day, that her mother was coming.

This must have driven the police to the interrogations the night of Nov 5, before Mama arrived the next day. Mama surely would have interferred with the investigation. She might have hired a lawyer, or taken Amanda home or to her relative (cousin?) in Germany, or to Rome to confer with the US Embassy. If Mama had not been on that flight, or not scheduled to arrive for several more days, the police might have monitored Amanda and boyfriend for several more days looking for a break in the case. But with Mama arriving on Nov 6, the police had to act that night (Nov 5) to break the case open. Bring in the boyfriend, get him to contradict himself and if he doesn't readily do that then get him confused enough so the interrogators can create contradictions in what he says (don't record it! You want no evidence of the interrogation.), then you can justify bringing in the Anerican girl late at night to confront/terrorize her into a confession. Got to move fast before Mama arrives in Perugia.

 

[Numbers]

Definitions, please

They had all I said when they did the interrogation and the "confessions" and lies are what they had for sure in their minds. They clearly thought they had the murderers and they arrested them. Think about it. If Raf said what they said he said combined with Amanda's I think most would think they at least involved. Like that 777?

Do you think the PLE framed them from day one? Why?

Grinder,
We need to resolve an issue or two. It is one of definition. And of mind-reading.

"Reasonable suspicion" (called "probable cause" in the US, see 4th Amendment) is the statement on an arrest warrant and presented at a judicial hearing to justify the arrest of someone. It is what an appeal court could examine as part of a habeas corpus hearing (or its equivalent review hearing in Italy).

"Suspicion" as you are using it seems to be one's speculation about what was in the mind of PLE or the prosecutor at one or more times on or after Nov. 2, 2007.

I am uncertain when the "framing" of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito began. Most likely, as soon as Nov. 3 or 4, 2007, since the police and prosecutor needed time to plan and arrange police schedules for the illegal overnight interrogation of Nov. 5/6. IIRC, in his court testimony, Giobbi from the SCO police, who was helping to direct the investigation, stated that he had planned to bring Amanda and Raffaele both in for simultaneous interrogations.

Police misconduct and failure to record the interrogation according to Italian procedural law were evident during the interrogation. Similar incidents of coercive interrogations in the US are also planned. It does not matter if the police believe that their misconduct is justified by the supposed guilt of the defendant; it remains misconduct.

Regarding the interrogations of Nov. 5/6, 2007, both Knox's and Sollecito's rights were violated. He was not informed of the right to remain silent, not provided with a lawyer, and not told that he was a suspect. She was deprived of all those rights as well, and also not told her obligations as a witness nor was she provided with a fair interpreter. And she was threatened and hit during the interrogation, a violation of Italian criminal law CP Art. 377-bis, to induce her to make a false statement to a judicial authority. The other laws (CPP Articles 63, 64, 188) violated were procedural laws which do not have a criminal penalty but which generally make the statements uttered or signed inadmissible in court. (CPP Articles 64, para. 3-bis; 191)

CPP Art. 191 Unlawfully gathered evidence
1. Evidence gathered in violation of the prohibitions set by law shall not be used.
2. The exclusion of evidence may be declared also ex officio at any stage and instance of the proceedings.

 

[carbonjam72]

I don't see any indication that the PLE were framing anybody initially. The first indication that might be a frame up was seizing randomly the large kitchen knife from Raffaele's kitchen drawer at 2 in the morning the night of the interrogations, Nov 5/6. The police had searched outside for the murder knife for several days beforehand. When the interrogators took Raffaele to his flat, an hour or so after excitedly seizing Raffaele's shoes due to circles in the tread pattern, I believe the police likely intended seize something more to tie Raffaele to the crime. I think they likely intended to 'find me a knife'. They had no criteria - no size, no blade width, no blade taper, nada - any sharp knife meaner-looking than a butter knife would do. It became the alleged probable murder weapon and Stefanoni then had to confirm it, which she loyally did by manipulating her lab DNA analysis processes to fabricate the finding of the victim's blood on the blade (Frame up, #2.)

Later in court the police officer (Finzi ?) who seized the knife was caught lying on just what criteria he used to determine it was possibly the murder weapon. He had no criteria. That night any knife would serve.

I've tried to make this point before, but on Nov 4th I believe, the police took Amanda back to the cottage and asked her to fish through a drawer of unused utensils. Raf says it was Napoleone that asked Amanda to pick out a knife that "might have been used in the murder", and Amanda also describes the incident in her book.

Amanda had a kind of breakdown after putting her hand in the draw, and had to lay down on a couch. Mignini would interpret this as another psychological "clue" of Amanda's guilt, or so he would say (Which I don't believe - I see Mignini as a straight up lying sociopath).

If you already agree Stef is able to work her magic on command in the lab, and such a fact would have to be known to the police or they couldn't simply choose any knife at random and be confident "it will do" - then getting Amanda's prints or DNA on a knife at the cottage would surely "also do" just as well, in fact even better, because they wouldn't be stuck with the ridiculous problem of transporting the knife to and from Raf's apartment. i.e.; Amanda's DNA on the handle, and Meredith's DNA on the blade.

That event happened on Nov 4th, 2007. That's an indication of framing at that point in time. IMO.

 

[Numbers]

I've tried to make this point before, but on Nov 4th I believe, the police took Amanda back to the cottage and asked her to fish through a drawer of unused utensils. Raf says it was Napoleone that asked Amanda to pick out a knife that "might have been used in the murder", and Amanda also describes the incident in her book.

Amanda had a kind of breakdown after putting her hand in the draw, and had to lay down on a couch. Mignini would interpret this as another psychological "clue" of Amanda's guilt, or so he would say (Which I don't believe - I see Mignini as a straight up lying sociopath).

If you already agree Stef is able to work her magic on command in the lab, and such a fact would have to be known to the police or they couldn't simply choose any knife at random and be confident "it will do" - then getting Amanda's prints or DNA on a knife at the cottage would surely "also do" just as well, in fact even better, because they wouldn't be stuck with the ridiculous problem of transporting the knife to and from Raf's apartment. i.e.; Amanda's DNA on the handle, and Meredith's DNA on the blade.

That event happened on Nov 4th, 2007. That's an indication of framing at that point in time. IMO.

Another interesting point on this is why would the police think that Amanda would know the knife, or kind of knife, that would have been used in the murder.

This appears to be a double set-up: 1) An attempt to make sure that Amanda's finger prints are on a knife; and 2) A (trick) question of the type "imagine you were at the murder ... what knife would have been used?"

 

[Numbers]

I don't see any indication that the PLE were framing anybody initially. The first indication that might be a frame up was seizing randomly the large kitchen knife from Raffaele's kitchen drawer at 2 in the morning the night of the interrogations, Nov 5/6. The police had searched outside for the murder knife for several days beforehand. When the interrogators took Raffaele to his flat, an hour or so after excitedly seizing Raffaele's shoes due to circles in the tread pattern, I believe the police likely intended seize something more to tie Raffaele to the crime. I think they likely intended to 'find me a knife'. They had no criteria - no size, no blade width, no blade taper, nada - any sharp knife meaner-looking than a butter knife would do. It became the alleged probable murder weapon and Stefanoni then had to confirm it, which she loyally did by manipulating her lab DNA analysis processes to fabricate the finding of the victim's blood on the blade (Frame up, #2.)


Later in court the police officer (Finzi ?) who seized the knife was caught lying on just what criteria he used to determine it was possibly the murder weapon. He had no criteria. That night any knife would serve.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

A correction of some importance. Stefanoni never claimed to detect any blood on the blade. In fact, she tested it a number of times and it was negative for blood.

She claimed to have detected the victim's LCN DNA but no blood. A very dubious claim.

 

[Samson]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

A correction of some importance. Stefanoni never claimed to detect any blood on the blade. In fact, she tested it a number of times and it was negative for blood.

She claimed to have detected the victim's LCN DNA but no blood. A very dubious claim.

In the Lundy case the evidence to convict is alleged brain material, but no neurons and no blood. Eerily similar.

 

[Numbers]

Grinder,
....

"Reasonable suspicion" (called "probable cause" in the US, see 4th Amendment) is the statement on an arrest warrant and presented at a judicial hearing to justify the arrest of someone. It is what an appeal court could examine as part of a habeas corpus hearing (or its equivalent review hearing in Italy).

"Suspicion" as you are using it seems to be one's speculation about what was in the mind of PLE or the prosecutor at one or more times on or after Nov. 2, 2007.

....

Another piece of information about "Reasonable Suspicion" (as used on an arrest warrant) from the ECHR:

48. The Court reiterates that in order for an arrest on reasonable suspicion to be justified under Article 5 § 1 (c) it is not necessary for the police to have obtained sufficient evidence to bring charges, either at the point of arrest or while the applicant is in custody (see Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B, pp. 29-30, § 53). Neither is it necessary that the person detained should ultimately have been charged or brought before a court. The object of detention for questioning is to further a criminal investigation by confirming or dispelling suspicions which provide the grounds for detention (see Murray v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 October 1994, Series A no. 300-A, p. 27, § 55). However, the requirement that the suspicion must be based on reasonable grounds forms an essential part of the safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention. The fact that a suspicion is held in good faith is insufficient. The words “reasonable suspicion” mean the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence (see Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 182, pp. 16-17, § 32). The Court stresses in this connection that in the absence of a reasonable suspicion arrest or detention of an individual must never be imposed for the purpose of making him confess or testify against others or to elicit facts or information which may serve to ground a reasonable suspicion against him.

{Emphasis added.}
Source: CEBOTARI v. MOLDOVA 35615/06

I suggest that the underlying reason for the arrest of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito was precisely the illegitimate purpose of "making [a person] confess or testify against others or to elicit facts or information which may serve to ground a reasonable suspicion against him."

Regarding the interrogation of Knox and Sollecito, the Italian procedural law CPP Art. 188 was broken. This law states:

Article 188 Moral freedom of the individual during evidence gathering
1. Methods or techniques that which may influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the capacity to recall and evaluate facts shall not be used, even with the consent of the person concerned.

The same wording appears in CPP Article 64, paragraph 2. Article 64 is titled General rules for questioning.

The point of this is that the arrest warrant for Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba would appear to have been deficient or illegitimate under Italian law, since the "reasonable suspicion" detailed in it primarily included information that was not only false or irrelevant, but the false information was obtained in violation of Italian procedural law, and in the case of Knox, in violation of Italian criminal law (CP Art. 377-bis).

Again, the question arises why these persons were arrested Nov. 6, 2007. These arrests were apparently illegal under Italian law and a violation of ECHR case-law.

 

[katy_did]

The police certainly knew that Amanda's mother was flying from Seattle to Rome on Nov 6. They would have known this from secretly monitoring Amanda's phone conversations (or emails) and/or from learning of it from Amanda directly or in conversation with others such as Raffaele, Filomena, or Laura. Amanda certainly would have told any of them, including the police in whose presence she cooperatively waited for hours and hours each day, that her mother was coming.

This must have driven the police to the interrogations the night of Nov 5, before Mama arrived the next day. Mama surely would have interferred with the investigation. She might have hired a lawyer, or taken Amanda home or to her relative (cousin?) in Germany, or to Rome to confer with the US Embassy. If Mama had not been on that flight, or not scheduled to arrive for several more days, the police might have monitored Amanda and boyfriend for several more days looking for a break in the case. But with Mama arriving on Nov 6, the police had to act that night (Nov 5) to break the case open. Bring in the boyfriend, get him to contradict himself and if he doesn't readily do that then get him confused enough so the interrogators can create contradictions in what he says (don't record it! You want no evidence of the interrogation.), then you can justify bringing in the Anerican girl late at night to confront/terrorize her into a confession. Got to move fast before Mama arrives in Perugia.

The big problem here, though, is why didn't they call Amanda into the police station too if this were all planned? I don't see how they could've known that Raffaele would say she might've left - most likely they got him to say that as a result of how the interrogation was going against Amanda, so if she hadn't been there they'd have had no reason to pressure him into saying it. Plus, they obviously didn't believe Raffaele was at home while Amanda left, so why would they have anticipated in advance he'd say that?

I think the cops were exhausted and under pressure, felt they were no closer to finding the murderer, and then that night thought they'd had a huge breakthrough. A rush to judgment, not something they'd thought up carefully in advance.

 

[Samson]

The big problem here, though, is why didn't they call Amanda into the police station too if this were all planned? I don't see how they could've known that Raffaele would say she might've left - most likely they got him to say that as a result of how the interrogation was going against Amanda, so if she hadn't been there they'd have had no reason to pressure him into saying it. Plus, they obviously didn't believe Raffaele was at home while Amanda left, so why would they have anticipated in advance he'd say that?

I think the cops were exhausted and under pressure, felt they were no closer to finding the murderer, and then that night thought they'd had a huge breakthrough. A rush to judgment, not something they'd thought up carefully in advance.

The transcripts of Amanda's cell phone communications november 2 to 5 reveal nothing but I am party to a mystery. Ice cool maiden?

 

[Samson]

Someone said they don't get Ergon.
Nor me.
We have Italian judges 3 4 5 6 and 7 (after Hellman and Zannetti) declare Knox and Sollecito innocent, yet he just posted

I don't believe the crime was motivated by race either, Ulfberht. More to do with narcissistic rage (at being rejected by Meredith) and psycho sexual dysfunction fueled by drugs, IMO. Knox and Sollecito were walking time bombs who acted as a catalyst for each other's pathology.

Unfortunately phd students may have to work with dot net,

For nostalgia, here is a link I saved.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=16929

 

[LondonJohn]

The big problem here, though, is why didn't they call Amanda into the police station too if this were all planned? I don't see how they could've known that Raffaele would say she might've left - most likely they got him to say that as a result of how the interrogation was going against Amanda, so if she hadn't been there they'd have had no reason to pressure him into saying it. Plus, they obviously didn't believe Raffaele was at home while Amanda left, so why would they have anticipated in advance he'd say that?

I think the cops were exhausted and under pressure, felt they were no closer to finding the murderer, and then that night thought they'd had a huge breakthrough. A rush to judgment, not something they'd thought up carefully in advance.

I disagree. I think the police/PM truly thought they'd worked it all out before 9pm on the 5th. I think they'd figured out (in their own minds) that Knox had gone to meet up with Lumumba on the might of the murder (from knowing Knox's/Lumumba's phone communications around 8-9pm on the night of the murder). They also "knew" that the break-in was staged, and this pointed (in their minds) exclusively to Knox as the only person who would have had an incentive to commit such a staging. And they had, set against that, Knox and Sollecito telling them that they'd spent the whole evening/night in Sollecito's apartment.

I think therefore that the police "knew" that both Knox and Sollecito had been lying to them about them both being in Sollecito's apartment all evening. In my opinion, the police probably thought at this point that only Knox (and not Sollecito) had been directly involved in the murder itself (alongside Lumumba), and that Sollecito was lying to protect Knox. Perhaps they thought that Sollecito had also participated in the mythical post-murder clean-up, again out of some desire to protect and help Knox.

In my view, therefore, I think the police (with the knowledge of the PM) put in place a definite plan with a desired set of outcomes. I think they planned to bring in Sollecito alone, and get him to admit the "truth" - that in fact Knox had left his apartment on the night of the murder, and that he had been lying about this to protect her. I think they then planned to send out their lights-and-sirens squad to pick up Knox in a very public show of force and competence (the irony!). Knox would then be confronted with Sollecito's change of story, plus the text exchange with Lumumba. Knox would then "buckle" in turn, and "tell the police what they already knew to be the truth".

Incidentally, when the police saw that Knox's text to Lumumba read as "see you later" - something they would only have been able to see from actually seeing Knox's or Lumumba's handsets (the phone records would not have recorded the actual contents of texts), they were elated, since this only appeared to confirm their theory. They were not totally certain they knew "the truth"......

 

[RWVBWL]

Rudy downstairs?

Greetings,
An interesting post by Annella at IIP has me wondering about downstairs, once again,
for John Douglas even makes mention that Rudy Guede might have went downstairs after Meredith's murder:

Former FBI Agent John Douglas and Mark Olshaker had this to say about the Meredith Kercher murder case in their book, Law & Disorder.

I have never seen a judge’s ruling so bizarre or nonsensical. It defies reason that it could have been conceived and written by an adult with any logical capacity whatsoever, much less an experienced jurist. To think that these two young people would be sentenced to spend a quarter of a century each in prison based on such a flight of fantasy is nothing less than sickening.

Violent crimes aren’t that elaborate or far-fetched. Never. A few basic things happen that lead to tragedy. Convoluted, counterintuitive scenarios are what happen in fiction. Given a certain set of evidence, which is a more coherent narrative— one of the explanations the prosecution or judges bought into, or that a local disco guy without a job, with a history of burglary and drugs, broke into a house he already knew, stole money, found one of the women residents home, began to sexually assault her, panicked and killed her, then escaped?

That scenario is clear-cut and logical: Rudy needed money. He went to the house on Via della Pergola, didn’t see any signs of habitation, so he broke a window with a rock and climbed up and in Filomena’s room. He was a lithe, athletic basketball player so this was hardly the feat of herculean skill the police and prosecutors seemed to think. It was the beginning of the month so it was likely rent money would be lying around. But first, as he had done on other occasions—past behavior predicts future behavior— he helped himself to food in the kitchen. His DNA bears this out. He then had to use the bathroom, and was probably surprised when he heard someone enter the house. This explains the toilet not being flushed; either he rushed out suddenly to see who it was or didn’t want to alert the other person that she was not alone.

He then had to neutralize the other person, who turned out to be Meredith. It could have been any of the four women— the scenario and outcome would have been the same.

It is clear from the crime scene that Meredith did not submit meekly. There is blood all over the place, which indicates she bravely fought like hell. Once she was rendered helpless, he could have had his sexual way with her, or even masturbated on or over her body as she was dying. The scene also tells me that he didn’t even leave right away then. He probably continued to look around for anything he might want to take, and threw the blanket haphazardly over her body so he wouldn’t have to look at her and confront what he had done. He was sophisticated enough to lock Meredith’s bedroom door, delaying discovery of the body. He went home through a circuitous route so as not to be spotted, and along the way ditched the two mobile phones he had stolen. When he got to his room he cleaned up and changed clothes. Anyone involved with this scene would have been covered with blood. Perhaps he even broke into the downstairs and took clothing belonging to one of the men. Then from home, he went out to the clubs to dance the night away.

Douglas, John; Olshaker, Mark (2013-02-26). Law & Disorder (pp. 369-370). Kensington. Kindle Edition.

 

[RWVBWL]

.
I also think it is strange that blood was not found at Rudi's place, unless Rudy cleaned up downstairs before going home. There was blood there, wet sandals, a chair by the shower, some kind of curtain/rod on the floor in the kitchen, maybe a knife print according to RWVBWL and other strange things. I wonder if Rudy cleaned up and borrowed some clean clothes? I suspect Rudy knew that the boys were all gone for the weekend.

Cody
.

Hi Codyjuneau,
Check out that quote from Annella of IIP fame, in my post above,
even John Douglas mentions that Rudy might have gone downstairs to clean up and change...

I read Dan O. and your next few exchanges,
it got me wondering more about that shower curtain/bed sheet/door window curtain.

Have a look:

PM Mignini watches the break-in.
Can he tell us if blood was found when they 1st went inside?
Or did the cat leave it all overnight, to confuse Dr. Stefanoni?

I note that Zugarini's foot does not go to far inside the window after she breaks it.
Anyone know whose brown purse that is near the cats milk bowls seen when Zugarini breaks in the window?

I sharpened the above screen grab a bit.
That glass is indeed double paned.
And the curtain or bed sheet is draped over on the top of a chair, not in a big bundle on the floor,
as seen the next day in the image below:

That sure is a lot of fabric for a door window, especially 1 double paned.
Compare it to the table cloth, which is easily the size of the door window,
that is a big pile of fabric.

Have a look at the door itself,
I can not see any damage from where a curtain rod was ripped off the door frame:

+

View a larger screen grab pix if you can, they show everything a bit better.
The curtain or beds sheet does not look like it was not stapled, nailed nor screwed onto the door,
as far as I can tell, and then ripped from the door frame during Zugarini's kick. But that sure looks like a curtain rod on the floor near it, as you pointed out awhile back...

Why does this shower curtain or bed sheet even matter?
I recall Frank Sfarzo of Perugia Shock making mention of someones black car being seen in the morning in the driveway. This person also, IIRC, testified about this in the Massei Trial.
This was not about the night before when the tow truck + broken down car where there and a dark car seen,
but in the morning right before the police arrived. IIRC, Sfarzo speculated that someone might have come to remove Meredith's body. Rudy guide did not have a car, but his buddy Hekuran Kokomani did, an older model dark Golf, I believe it was. Didn't Hekuran say that Guede wanted to rent it off him or something like that for $300.00? Weird that Kokomani bailed town also soon after Meredith's rape and murder. I wonder what color Koko's hair was at the time? Blonde?

It's odd to watch the crime scene video from downstairs, for on the 1st day, after Zugarini kicks in the kitchen window, the video stops for 11 minutes + 16 seconds, makes you wonder if some scenes were deleted or someone does not want to show what they filmed? What was on the tape? There were not any bodies downstairs, so why not show the kitchen nor any of the guys bedrooms or the small bathroom, on that 1st day of investigation.

All of this from the Downstairs Crime Scene kinda intrigues me,
as does that possible bloody knife blade imprint seen on Stefano's bed,
which was missing its sheet...
RW