Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

It's mostly that I haven't been able to squeeze all of the evidence into a single trip theory. The blood at "J" and the stripes on the wall show Rudy with two very bloody hands immediately after the stabing. There must be a cleanup trip before the body can be moved, the shirts pushed up, the bra ripped off, ... . The pillow shows a set of shoe prints that are incompatible with the prints going down the hall. And the bloody palm print on the pillow is incompatible with the blood on either hand seen on the bed or the wall.


My theory as it currently stands:

Rudy stabs Meredith where blood sprays on his right hand holding the knife and his left hand restraining Meredith. Rudy steps away and stands near the head of the bed while Meredith crawls from facing the wardrobe towards the radiator where she collapses. Rudy stands watching for perhaps 5 minutes placing his left hand on the wall at one point and then moves over and sits on the bed with the right hand still holding the knife leaving the mark at "J" as he sits. The mark on the wall behind the bed is probably created at this time as Rudy strikes the wall in anger with the bottom of his left fist creating an impact splatter. As Rudy is rotated, he drops the knife from his right hand, the point landing first and bouncing back creating the stain showing the double mark of the tip and the block of the hilt where it lands. Rudy stands up and opens the door with his right hand. The right index finger touches the poster on the door behind the handle. The hand slides off the handle and catches the door swinging open just below the latch.

Rudy washes his hands and returns to the bedroom with a towel. He straightens Meredith, probably removing her trowsers at this time. He pulls her head around pulling the jacket off and reversing the sleeves, He tries to lift her onto the pillow by grabing the bra band with one hand and under Meredith's right leg with the other. The bra rips apart with Meredith falling back to the floor leaving only the bra in Rudy's hand. In this process, Rudy steps in Meredith's blood with his left shoe which he tracks all over the pillow, has gotten more blood on one hand which left the identifying palm print and has gotten blood on the right pant leg.

Rudy slips off the left shoe and returns to the bathroom for the second cleaning. On the way he brushed the edge of the bathroom door with his pant leg leaving a drip of blood. Rudy slips off his right shoe and steps into the shower for the final cleaning. After rinsing the pant leg, Rudy steps out of the shower leaving the partial watery print on the mat. Rudy uses a towel to absorb the excess water on his pants and dry his foot then puts his shoes back on using the bidet as a foot stool where a few drips of watery blood fall.

Rudy returns to the murder room, grabs his knife, steps in more blood while backing towards the door then turns and walks briskly down the hall towards the front door leaving a trail of bloody shoe prints. He stops breifly at the kitchen table to grab his sweatshirt from the back of the chair which he tied around his waist then one more step towards the front door. But before putting full weight on that left foot he backs up, turns around and steps over to the couch. There he paces in place for 3 or 4 steps.

We cannot see the trail but it is presumed that Rudy then returned once more to Meredith's room to find her keys, took the cell phones and credit cards from her purse, scraping himself on the zipper leaving his DNA and locked Meridith's room on the way out. He then used the keys to unlock the front door and left.

Rudy is a compulsive liar, but didnt he say in his witness statement that as Mez lay dying she uttered the name, "'Aff, 'Aff" (obviously, this is self-serving to Rudy), and he tried to write this on the wall in blood.

The other blood finger marks look like classic Manga signatures IMV, wherein a couple of strokes of blood appear over the title of the Manga vampire slayer fantasies.

 

[acbytesla]

I guess you mean "no proof of a staged break in" - which we know there isn't. The proof of an actual break in is pretty sound.

You're right. I fixed it.. Thank you.

 

[Vixen]

I never take this stuff very seriously. It's amazing what people say behind other people's backs. Very often, they don't really mean what they say, It's more about blowing off steam or even just having something. People talk about their bosses, employees, roommates, boyfriends, girlfriends, husbands, wives lovers, etc. etc. etc.

You can't take it seriously. My sisters do it constantly. The vast majority they don't really mean.

Amanda was different. She was a Yank, enough different that a bunch of Brits would talk about their strange colonial cousin. She's also from Seattle, which has its own separate culture that is kind of unique. I'm sure that Meredith is likely to comment about her. That doesn't really mean that she didn't like Amanda. I think it is very telling that so many of Mez's texts to Amanda signed off with kisses.If she truly hated Amanda there is no way that she would have done that.

Oh, easily. Brits are as equally insincere as Americans (according to the stereotypes). However, Brits are very good at freezing out people they disapprove of, whilst remaining superficially friendly (a sweeping generalisation, of course).

IMV Mez had sufficient reservations about Amanda to make her avoid her, whilst being too kind to actually say anything.

Brits don't generally have any prejudice against Americans, so that wasn't the reason IMV.

 

[acbytesla]

Rudy is a compulsive liar, but didnt he say in his witness statement that as Mez lay dying she uttered the name, "'Aff, 'Aff" (obviously, this is self-serving to Rudy), and he tried to write this on the wall in blood.

The other blood finger marks look like classic Manga signatures IMV, wherein a couple of strokes of blood appear over the title of the Manga vampire slayer fantasies.

You're as bad as Mignini. He sees Satanic rituals and you see Manga. I've heard of looking at the world through rose colored glasses, but this is munch crazier. Do you really need Knox and Sollecito to be guilty so much that you see things that are not there?

 

[acbytesla]

[/HILITE]


Oh, easily. Brits are as equally insincere as Americans (according to the stereotypes). However, Brits are very good at freezing out people they disapprove of, whilst remaining superficially friendly (a sweeping generalisation, of course).

IMV Mez had sufficient reservations about Amanda to make her avoid her, whilst being too kind to actually say anything.

Brits don't generally have any prejudice against Americans, so that wasn't the reason IMV.

But Mez didn't avoid Amanda. And it's not prejudice. Amanda was an outsider. The Brits could just as easily have been snooty Yuppie girls from Bellevue Washington and Amanda being the city girl from the heart of Grunge rock would have been just as different.

I have no doubt that Amanda was different than maybe that particular group of girls. That doesn't mean that Amanda didn't like Mez or vice versa. But you can't take Mez talking about her roommate as proof that she didn't like Amanda. And more importantly it is NOT proof that Amanda didn't like Mez.

Even Massei said there was no evidence of any discord

 

[Vixen]

Yes, this was the most astonishing reasoning. But the larger issue that this and other arguments he makes serves to disguise is the relationship between the professional judge's report and the lay jurors' deliberations.

If you recall, the "rogue" lay judge on the panel, Genny Ballerini, apparently stated in interview that the professional judges did not try to influence her and her colleagues' decision. At the end of the process of deliberation, so we are led to believe, the lay judges rendered their verdict and Nencini and his deputy subsequently wrote the motivation report.

According to reports, "she insisted that the two professional judges on the panel had not tried to sway the jury."

Assuming this is true, then the motivation report cannot be the product of the lay juror's deliberations with regard to the inclusion of content, type and style of argument unless Nencini recorded and had transcribed the detailed deliberations of the lay judges and his report is simply a precis of the transcription. I hardly think so. So, therefore, Nencini has written what he thinks having been told what the lay judges' decision is.

This is interesting for another reason, which again presupposes what the rogue juror has said is true. If the lay judges had returned not guilty verdicts, then Nencini would have been required to write a wholly different report, pointing out, for example, the reason why Raffaele's DNA on the clasp as part of a mixed profile cannot be regarded as evidence for his participation in the murder!

On the other hand, the story of the process given by the rogue juror could be inaccurate and not only is the motivation report the work of Nencini, but so are the verdicts, with the jurors "guided" towards them or else ignored. Ballerini was also reported as saying after "she heard the verdict and sentence": "I said immediately that I did not agree and they took note. Other members of the jury were also against an increase in the sentence....but they were told there was no alternative.'"

Perhaps it is most likely, after all, that the lay judges are more window dressing than anything else at Italian trials.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-s-involvement-Meredith-Kercher-s-murder.html

Bellerini comes across as a complete ignoramus. Firstly, she is showing contempt of court in discussing the judges in camera deliberations.

Secondly, her reasoning appears to be based on feeling sorry for Raf.

Thirdly, this moron sold her story to OGGI, itself a dubious anti-establishment rag, on the eve of the Bruno-Marasca SC hearing.

What a completely disgraceful and discreditable character.

How do idiots like these get on jury/judge service?

So Ballerina thinks Ballerina should have written the motivations report:

Der, I'm a complete moron and OGGI are paying me €200 for my "story". What it is, right, I wuz called to jury service. I liked that young Italian fella, and I thought it really unfair he was accused of murder, cos, you know what? He looked at me and gave me a wink.

If I had my way....[cont. p.94]

 

[Vixen]

No PG commenter has ever given a satisfactory answer to the question of how Rudi could have left so much evidence in Meredith's room and the hallway, and Raffaele and Amanda so little (although many have shown themselves to be as nimble as circus aerialists in avoiding addressing it). By this I mean that the differential of evidence is so huge. Against Raffaele one has the highly disputed bra clasp, and against Amanda nothing.

Rudy didn't hang around to cover his tracks.

He is astoundingly stupid and yet you think he was crafty enough to get Raf and Amanda implicated.

 

[Vixen]

But that too is a lie. 6 experts testified in trial and 5 out of 6 said that it could be a single assailant. Why do you keep ignoring this fact? Is it because it doesn't match the story you want to tell?

My view is that great weight should be given as to what goes on in court. That is the proper place to present evidence.

Solving a case "on paper" doesn't work. Both sides presented evidence, testimony and expert witnesses.

At the end of the trial a verdict has to be made in favour of one party or the other.

It is the responsibility of each party to make sure relevant evidence is presented.

Massei found in favour of the "more than one perp" theory after seeing and hearing all of the evidence presented in court.

 

[acbytesla]

My view is that great weight should be given as to what goes on in court. That is the proper place to present evidence.

Solving a case "on paper" doesn't work. Both sides presented evidence, testimony and expert witnesses.

At the end of the trial a verdict has to be made in favour of one party or the other.

It is the responsibility of each party to make sure relevant evidence is presented.

Massei found in favour of the "more than one perp" theory after seeing and hearing all of the evidence presented in court.

So MasseI decides to believe one expert over 5 other experts including prosecution witnesses and that's good enough? Don't you think that is immensely stupid?

 

[LondonJohn]

There is a M O U N T A I N O F E V I D E N C E against Raf and Amanda.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*takes sip of water*

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,

Sabrina Misseri might say differently, and so might Federico Aldrovandi, if he were still alive. Then there are the Birmingham Six, The Central Park Five, The Nofolk Four, and the West Memphis Three (or the Duke lacrosse three). Or Farah Jama and Lindy Chamberlain. Or...well my lunch break is almost over. Either you get the point, or you don't.

Chris, please don't quote me out of context. Context is all.

My remark referred to Raf claiming he and his attorneys being terrified to ask the forensic police to test the pillow stain. I expressed scepticism.

Please can you answer the point I was making. Why did not Raf's defense requisistion a pillow stain test? Please don't tell me Avv Bongiorno was a shrinking violet. No thinking person will consider that likely.

I wrote:

You need only fear the police if you are guilty (maybe in USA this is different, from what we read in the papers).

Raf writes, in Honour Bound
[excerpt re the stain on the pillow under Mez' body]

We thought long and hard about demanding a full analysis, but we did not trust the Polizia Scientifica as far as we could spit and were deathly afraid they might choose to construe that the semen was mine. So we held back.
[excerpt ends]

A very different story from Dan O.'s.

In fact it's rather akin to a kid saying,"It wasn't me who stole the apples" (to a farmer), or a kid with icecream all over its face, before anyone even knew the apples were stolen, or the icecream gone.

A bit like Amanda yelling in the questura, "I hope they catch the [insert foulmouthed epithet] b&stards [note use of plural] that did it!" (i.e., The murder and sexual assault of Mez.)

 

[LondonJohn]

My view is that great weight should be given as to what goes on in court. That is the proper place to present evidence.

Solving a case "on paper" doesn't work. Both sides presented evidence, testimony and expert witnesses.

At the end of the trial a verdict has to be made in favour of one party or the other.

It is the responsibility of each party to make sure relevant evidence is presented.

Massei found in favour of the "more than one perp" theory after seeing and hearing all of the evidence presented in court.

And Massei was demonstrably wrong.

It's been pointed out time and again that it's a grotesque folly (and a massive failing of democracy) if the public is expected to trust the verdicts of courts purely on authority grounds. One of the central tenets of a proper justice system is that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. In other words, any member of society must have the right and the opportunity (if they desire) to see the way in which justice is applied, and to have access to the same information available to those who are deciding cases.

In this particular case, it's been possible to get access to sufficient records of court proceedings (testimony and evidence) to understand the material upon which the courts decided the case. It has long been evident to all rational, logical, non-partisan observers that there was no credible, reliable evidence against either Knox or Sollecito on the murder charges, and that Knox's criminal slander charge was fatally compromised by the circumstances of her interrogation. No amount of "nuanced" insights gained by actually seeing and hearing witnesses on the stand could possibly change that conclusion - this is thousands of miles away from being even a "reasonable doubt" case.

The Massei and Nencini courts messed up spectacularly and disastrously. Many people here could see that. It appears that the Italian Supreme Court can now see that too.

 

[Grinder]

The courts have ruled that Amanda and Raf at a minimum are not guilty of participating in the murder. Of the courts that ruled two said guilty two said not guilty. The final court said not guilty. The Italian system does not agree at all with the concept that the best way to reach a decision requires hearing all the testimony in person. Apparently the spiteful or quarrelsome woman doesn't like Italian justice implying it is inferior to the UK.

Personally I thought their system and the actors sucked when the were guilty and even though they got to a good verdict it still sucks.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dr. Vinci found the stain

Vixen,

If Raffaele were so afraid of the pillowcase, then why did the defense hire Dr. Vinci? He was the one who found (rediscovered?) the stain with an ALS. I don't believe that the defense has any power to "requisition" the pillowcase. Your attempted comparison to boys with ice cream stains or apple stains, or whatever, simply does not work. Now that I have answered your question, please answer mine. Why does what the defense wants even matter? Why wasn't the stain tested in the first days of the investigation?

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,

I thought it was one long trial. More importantly, you are still running away from the questions you have been repeatedly asked. I'll do my best to summarize. Wouldn't a putative semen stain in a sexually tinged crime be among the first things tested? Why should it even matter what Raffaele and his attorneys say; shouldn't it have been tested regardless? Why should Raffaele and his lawyers have any faith (confidence, trust, whatever) in the competence and integrity of the forensic police, based on their work with respect to the shoe print and the bra clasp? Indeed, why should anyone? Thanks in advance.

If you were a defense barrister, Chris, you would make darn sure tests that would clear your client's name are carried out. Get your own experts, if necessary.

Or could it be, there is a more sinister reason Avv Bongiorno (barrister for Mafioso [so, she can say, "Boo!" to a goose after all ]) advised her client to "Keep shtum!" about the pillow stain.

Answer my question, Chris. Why did Raf's defense advise Raf not to pursue the pillow stain issue.

The answer is clear to anyone.

 

[sept79]

So MasseI decides to believe one expert over 5 other experts including prosecution witnesses and that's good enough? Don't you think that is immensely stupid?

Or, just Massei following the script . . .

 

[Vixen]

Dumb and obtuse observation. You would think that the police would want to test something that looks like a semen stain. That the defense shouldn't have to ask for this. You would also think that the prosecution wouldn't fight that.

This case turns jurisprudence on its head. You have the defense tring to get a complete examination of the evidence and the people who should be most interested in justice doing everything to prevent that. Why do think that is Vixen?

Raf's lawyers had a professional duty to know that what's not included or pleaded at a trial, cannot be assessed.

But then, you (and Raf and Avv Bongiorno) knew that, didn't you?

 

[kwill]

Why did Raf's defense advise Raf not to pursue the pillow stain issue.

The answer is clear to anyone.

It sure is.

 

[LondonJohn]

Chris, please don't quote me out of context. Context is all.

My remark referred to Raf claiming he and his attorneys being terrified to ask the forensic police to test the pillow stain. I expressed scepticism.

Please can you answer the point I was making. Why did not Raf's defense requisistion a pillow stain test? Please don't tell me Avv Bongiorno was a shrinking violet. No thinking person will consider that likely.

I wrote:

You need only fear the police if you are guilty (maybe in USA this is different, from what we read in the papers).

Raf writes, in Honour Bound
[excerpt re the stain on the pillow under Mez' body]

We thought long and hard about demanding a full analysis, but we did not trust the Polizia Scientifica as far as we could spit and were deathly afraid they might choose to construe that the semen was mine. So we held back.
[excerpt ends]

A very different story from Dan O.'s.

In fact it's rather akin to a kid saying,"It wasn't me who stole the apples" (to a farmer), or a kid with icecream all over its face, before anyone even knew the apples were stolen, or the icecream gone.

A bit like Amanda yelling in the questura, "I hope they catch the [insert foulmouthed epithet] b&stards [note use of plural] that did it!" (i.e., The murder and sexual assault of Mez.)

You still don't understand it, do you?

Firstly, it's not the job of the defence to analyse the crime scene. That's the job of the police, under direction from the PM.

Secondly, let's think critically for a moment (stick with me here.....) and examine how a "guilty Sollecito" and an "innocent Sollecito" might have approached this issue.

Before we go further, we can actually subdivide "guilty Sollecito" into two subtypes: 1) "guilty Sollecito who left his semen on that pillowcase"; 2) "guilty Sollecito who participated but who did not ejaculate at the murder scene".

Obviously "guilty Sollecito 1" would have tried very hard to prevent that stain from being tested and DNA matched. We can all agree on that. There's maximum downside risk associated with testing and zero upside risk.

"Guilty Sollecito 2" very possibly might have wanted the stain to be tested, if he were certain that it wasn't his. There would be some potential upside to him if it were identified as (say) Guede's semen.

Now let's evaluate the motivation of "innocent Sollecito". Why would "innocent Sollecito" want the stain tested? If he wasn't there, he wouldn't know what it was or where it came from. Granted, there might be some potential upside to "innocent Sollecito" if the stain were tested and found to come from (eg) Guede. But there would also be significant potential downside risk to Sollecito. As others have already pointed out, Sollecito and his legal advisers had already seen grotesque errors from the "crack" police team when it came to the shoe prints (jeez, it took one of Sollecito's young nieces, IIRC, to point out that the number of rings in the shoe print didn't match!), and they'd also been demonstrably incompetent and cavalier in their analysis of the knife and the bra clasp.


See, if you actually stop and THINK about it in an objective and logical manner, it becomes clear that an innocent Sollecito would have little to gain from getting the stain tested, and potentially a fair bit to lose. In addition, one can see a scenario where a guilty Sollecito might actively want to see the stain tested (particularly if he knew what it was and whose it was).

Therefore to equate a) Sollecito demurring over demanding a test on the stain with b) an indication of Sollecito's guilt, is lazy, illogical, biased and wrong on its face. Other than that, excellent work

 

[LondonJohn]

If you were a defense barrister, Chris, you would make darn sure tests that would clear your client's name are carried out. Get your own experts, if necessary.

Or could it be, there is a more sinister reason Avv Bongiorno (barrister for Mafioso [so, she can say, "Boo!" to a goose after all ]) advised her client to "Keep shtum!" about the pillow stain.

Answer my question, Chris. Why did Raf's defense advise Raf not to pursue the pillow stain issue.

The answer is clear to anyone.

Enlighten us all about how a test on that stain "would have cleared (Sollecito's) name".

This should be fun