Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[RoseMontague]

When was the first mention by the police that the burglary was staged? Didn't the very first officers think it was staged? If so, do you believe the PP decided from the first to frame the kids?

ETA - How do you know it wasn't staged? Could Rudi have staged it because he had asked Mez if he could come over and thought the other british may have been told by her? He then thought he needed to stage it. Not suggesting it happened that way but it could have.

The only reason to think it was staged was the glass on top of clothes thing, which means they would not have allowed Filomena to go through her stuff disturbing the supposed glass on clothes without at the very least taking a picture of it. Which they didn't do. This tells me they are pretty stupid, lying, or possibly both.

 

[Grinder]

The only reason to think it was staged was the glass on top of clothes thing, which means they would not have allowed Filomena to go through her stuff disturbing the supposed glass on clothes without at the very least taking a picture of it. Which they didn't do. This tells me they are pretty stupid, lying, or possibly both.

The main reason given in Massei IIRC was Raf's nothing was stolen, which I believe he repeated to the PP.

There is no proof that anyone entered through the window. I think some here have spotted dirt on the floor that came from outside. I know you think there are scuff marks on the wall.

I always vote for incompetence. I think if they consciously framed them it started after the 6th.

 

[anglolawyer]

The height of the window was another reason, I believe. It may even have been the main one.

 

[Kauffer]

The height of the window was another reason, I believe. It may even have been the main one.

It was certainly one of the original ones. Ricciarelli, famously used it to rule out a real break in. That was before just about everyone in Perugia, including grandmothers with walking frames attended the cottage and very very easily scaled the wall to reach Romanelli's window.

 

[RoseMontague]

The main reason given in Massei IIRC was Raf's nothing was stolen, which I believe he repeated to the PP.

There is no proof that anyone entered through the window. I think some here have spotted dirt on the floor that came from outside. I know you think there are scuff marks on the wall.

I always vote for incompetence. I think if they consciously framed them it started after the 6th.

I believe it was the white paint dust from the old paint on the bricks of the exterior wall. the same paint dust you can see on the bottom of the lawyer's shoe as he made the climb.

 

[Antony]

That is the bizarre thing about this case. Having shredded Hellmann's report on the above grounds and directing Nencini to correct Hellmann's shortcomings, SC have now torn up Nencini's.

It's taken you till now to see the bizarre nature of the case?

 

[RoseMontague]

On the question of how Rudy was initially identified, testimony of the police fingerprint expert shows it was the palmprint on the pillow (not a fingerprint). Human translation 4/23/09 testimony

ANSWER: Obvious in what sense [meaning]? On a technical plane it was obvious and it was enough to make a print [dattilodìscopico] confrontation, as the technicians will say, they have found the points more than sufficient under a juridical point of view to establish [ritenere literally is more like reckon, but the sense here is more affirmative] the identity between this palmprint in blood on the pillow and the palmprint in Rudy Guede's file [literally "card"].
Indeed, I want to be more precise, let's say that the confrontation is made by suspect, it's not that we identified [meaning "found"] him through the print. Among the various suspects, now I don't remember on what basis [he was a suspect], the Flying [Squad] was pointing also at Rudy Guede, taking his card [i.e. they took the card with his sample palmprint from his file] there was a confrontation between the palmprint in ink on its photodactilosocopic [correct in English?] card and this print in blood and the identity has been established as certain exactly under the aspect of the [matching] points, at least, surely more than 15.

 

[Numbers]

When was the first mention by the police that the burglary was staged? Didn't the very first officers think it was staged? If so, do you believe the PP decided from the first to frame the kids?

ETA - How do you know it wasn't staged? Could Rudi have staged it because he had asked Mez if he could come over and thought the other british may have been told by her? He then thought he needed to stage it. Not suggesting it happened that way but it could have.

My thought is that that Mignini and the "real" police came to their idea that the break-in was staged independently of the postal police. Giobbi did not reference them or an insurance fraud in his testimony, IIRC, but did mention glass fragments on clothes, his walk-around of the flat and not seeing glass fragments on the ground, and his "reasoning" that a burglar would not choose Filomena's window as an entry, but rather the balcony window. I don't believe the postal police had the intent of framing Amanda or anyone; I don't believe that their role or competence is at that level.

But if you detect that my argument is, shall we say, a little on the weak side, I would not disagree. I have become something of a conspiracy theorist about the police involvement. I even recently came to the belief that Patrick Lumumba was chosen by the police as a targeted "co-conspirator" of the murder/rape because otherwise his message to Amanda and her reply must be innocent and something of an alibi.

My belief is based in part on Giobbi testifying that the police quickly decided to focus attention on those close to Meredith, and Amanda had the weakest alibi. My extension is that since she had a key, the break-in was therefore staged (in Italian police or PM Mignini logic). I am also of the opinion that Amanda, a trusting and naive young American woman with an Italian boyfriend of about one week's acquaintance, was by misfortune an ideal match for PM Mignini's obsessions.

I should say that because of my technical or scientific background, when I state that I believe something, it does not mean that I am convinced of the truth of my belief. Let's say the belief is a hypothesis which may or may not be reasonable and may or may not be readily subject to proof. Another hypothesis may turn out to be more credible, if additional evidence emerges.

Regarding your alternative suggestion that Rudi (aka Rudy) staged the break-in, again it seems possible, but not plausible to me. There was no independent evidence of Guede and Meredith agreeing to a meeting or date at her place, and her British friends testified they thought they would have learned of any such meeting/date from her, IIRC.

 

[Antony]

Hello Everyone....I'm new here but I hope I have a pretty good understanding of the debacle but forgive me if I introduce stuff already covered. Hopefully I add a slightly different slant.

The "staged break in" has always troubled me. Surely Mignini and the overruled Judges are not so stupid that they believe staged break ins are always evidence of inside jobs. Of course they may be but the quickness to this conclusion by the prosecution has hints of Inspector Clouseau at work. If this is the extent of the Italian police work it is worrying to say the least. A message to burglars to stage a staged break after their break in thereby deflecting suspicion to the inhabitants and rendering themselves immune from being caught. I'm not suggesting anything by bringing this up other than ineptness by the Italian authorities by jumping to conclusions before proper investigation takes place.

I'm not averse to a little gambling from time to time but if you offered me a bet on the chances of murder accomplices unknowingly faking one of their colleague's favourite break in methods at a crime scene I'd expect to see odds in the tens of thousands to one. It's just too ridiculous for words to believe that K&S unwittingly happened to emulate Guede's previously used methods of breaking and entering. Sorry...just NO.

The "clean up" suggestion is absurd. Mignini (and possibly some of the overruled Judges) suggest Knox is cunning. However it's not cunning to attempt a cleanup of your own presence at a crime scene. It's stupid because it cannot be done and that is all the proof you need to prove it wasn't done. You can alter evidence of one's presence at a crime scene but you cannot remove it. The longer you stay and clean the more new evidence you leave to be found by police (if they do their work properly). If K&S had entered Kercher's room to "clean up" they would certainly have brought into the room new evidence of their presence. Whether they could remove more of "themselves" than they introduce is academic but to think anybody is capable of "overseeing the removal of their presence" is just plain deluded. ...or does Mignini and company think those fellows wear their white suits just for the fun of it.

There is only one way for K&S to have an absence of presence in the murder room and that's for them to be have been absent from the murder room.....or to wear a forensic experts white outfit. .....oh and try working with household cleaners and see how the stench follows you around for those around you to smell....for hours.

In fact were K&S guilty (hypothetically let's just assume this) AND cunning surely the cunning thing to do is the simplest. "Break in" through the front door after Rudy leaves then break into Meredith's room. Then "investigate" what's under the blanket and tramp your evidence all around the room and then the apartment. Then call the police. Job done.

...but a staged break in with a rock fetched from outside (in full view to inquisitive passers by) to then go inside to smash windows (which might alert neighbours) is just inconceivably stupid. So stupid that I would suggest that no such complete idiot exists that would attempt such folly. (In fact some would suggest that K&S are that stupid as to select a rock barely able to be tossed more than few metres). But it requires an even bigger idiot to conceive this type of "staging" to be a remotely plausible scenario (..and I haven't even broached the stupidity of "staging" a break in through a window too high off the ground to climb into as suggested by some of those so blinded).

I live in a country with one of the highest murder rates in the entire world...South Africa. It is absolutely common for a single attacker to inflict multiple wounds on multiple victims at a single murder scene. One person can murder an entire family (google farm murders in South Africa) in the most vicious and torturing way without any sign of resistance from the victims. Multiple attackers it may have been but to rule out a single attacker is utterly idiotic.

That all makes sense but let's not over-analyse. The alleged "staged break-in" and "clean-up" were always fictions needed by the investigators in order to sustain their persecution of Amanda and Raff.

The point is that once you follow the evidence at the scene, you have to conclude:

a) that the crime was committed by an intruder (or, conceivably, intruders) who broke in through the window in Filomena's room;

b) that there is evidence of only one perpetrator of the crime and in particular, nothing implicates the 2 students.

So - having already announced that the 2 were guilty, the police and prosecutor were in a bind. The evidence didn't agree with their solution to the crime - so, the evidence had to be wrong! How did it come to be wrong? Of course, the 2 murderers cleaned up their own traces and simulated a break-in! Obvious, really.

It's so much easier to establish your own version of "the truth" when every piece of evidence that doesn't agree with it can be attributed to a staging of the scene. Don't you know that dinosaur fossils were put in the ground to mislead humanity from the word of God as revealed in Genesis?

 

[Antony]

When was the first mention by the police that the burglary was staged? Didn't the very first officers think it was staged? If so, do you believe the PP decided from the first to frame the kids?

ETA - How do you know it wasn't staged? Could Rudi have staged it because he had asked Mez if he could come over and thought the other british may have been told by her? He then thought he needed to stage it. Not suggesting it happened that way but it could have.

Didn't the Postal Police react that they thought at first it was an insurance scam? This was particularly because the cameras and laptops hadn't been stolen - "This is no burglary." Did they suggest this to the Carabinieri when they got there?

Then after the shocking truth was discovered, they couldn't let go of their initial impression, and the idea of a "staged break-in" took hold.

 

[carbonjam72]

Bonassi's Nov 3/4 statement led to Guede IIUC

On the question of how Rudy was initially identified, testimony of the police fingerprint expert shows it was the palmprint on the pillow (not a fingerprint). Human translation 4/23/09 testimony

I think the palm print is how they confirmed Rudy's identity. BUt Bonassi (guy downstairs) mentioned I believe on Nov 3 (statement signed Nove 4?) that they had a visitor who left a turd in the toilet, and described Rudy. The police then took that info and through extensive interviews, came up with Guede's name.

So the gross incompetence of the police, is really just Mignini refusing to let go of his satanic orgy fantasy, which he desperately needed to be true at that particular moment. A good number of the police actually did their job.

 

[carbonjam72]

Didn't the Postal Police react that they thought at first it was an insurance scam? This was particularly because the cameras and laptops hadn't been stolen - "This is no burglary." Did they suggest this to the Carabinieri when they got there?

Then after the shocking truth was discovered, they couldn't let go of their initial impression, and the idea of a "staged break-in" took hold.

I just can't buy this version, though I know others do. (As has been previously throd.)

I don't think everyone thought the same thing at the same time, and ultimately Mignini seemed to be able to summon and suppress or destroy any evidence he wanted whenever he wanted. Stef and the other experts didn't just happen to keep coming up with supporting evidence by accident, IUAM.

Without the resources Amanda and Raf were able to throw at this 'railroad job', I think they would still be in jail, as doubtless countless others are in Italy and around the world.

 

[Antony]

Evidence for this please.

Oh wait.... there isn't any.

Well, the evidence is obviously that Mez's digestion was halted while her pizza meal was still undigested, but she wasn't killed until 11:45pm. And we know the time-of-death from the Massei trial.

Oops, now Vixen is going to go back on PMF and quote me.

 

[Grinder]

Didn't the Postal Police react that they thought at first it was an insurance scam? This was particularly because the cameras and laptops hadn't been stolen - "This is no burglary." Did they suggest this to the Carabinieri when they got there?

Only they and Follain know. Bill will check on this for us I'm sure.

I don't know how it could have been insurance fraud since nothing was stolen.

I remember that before Mez was found they thought it looked like a fake. Later when the 911 tape was heard that reinforced the idea.

 

[Vixen]

The ECHR is incorporated into Italian law at the constitutional level. It is superior to ordinary Italian law such that if there is a conflict, the ECHR prevails, so you are wrong.

ECHR case law, in circumstances relating to violations of Article 3 does not require a police complaints procedure.

In cases where there is no police record, as in this one - either in the form of contemporary notes, which appear to have been taken but never produced, or interrogation recordings and in the absence of a lawyer, itself a violation of the convention, the court is minded to believe the complainant with regard to allegations of abuse in custody.

IIRC The complaint is under Article 6.

Article 3 is about torture and extreme and unusual punishment. Good luck with that one.

From Wiki:

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". There are no exceptions or limitations on this right.

This provision usually applies, apart from torture, to cases of severe police violence and poor conditions in detention. The European Court of Human Rights has further held that this provision prohibits the extradition of a person to a foreign state if they are likely to be subjected there to torture. This article has been interpreted as prohibiting a state from extraditing an individual to another state if they are likely to suffer the death penalty. This article does not, however, on its own forbid a state from imposing the death penalty within its own territory.

“ Article 3 – Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

 

[Vixen]

This is one more bizarre misstatement by "Vixen". Amanda Knox described being mistreated by police in her Memoriale 1 written Nov. 6, 2007, soon after the interrogation and her questioning by the "notary" PM Mignini. Included in her account was the statement that she had been threatened and slapped. This Memoriale 1 statement is available online.

Amanda Knox also stated some of the same details of mistreatment by the police in her court testimony during the Massei court trial. For making these statements in open court, she was charged with criminal calunnia and a civil calunnia suit was lodged against her by, IIRC, approximately 12 police who were apparently the members of the interrogation team.

Knox claims to have been subjected to treatment of the type that the ECHR has described in its case-law as "inhuman and degrading treatment" which under the European Convention on Human Rights is a violation of Article 3. The very fact that the police succeeded in overcoming her resistance and breaking her will, so that she signed a false statement, which she had not maintained prior to the interrogation and which she repudiated soon after the interrogation, may be sufficient indication of this violation, according to ECHR case-law.

She did not make any complaints at the time. There are court transcripts wherein Amands concurs all was well.

As she has been charged with more Calumny, she can now bring in a defense that the fact of police brutality and inhuman and degrading treatment happened.

She didn't report it to the American ambassador, either, so we await to see her substantiaion of these extremely serious charges against these professional policemen.

 

[Vixen]

Evidence for this please.

Oh wait.... there isn't any.

It's all in the autopsy report. Mez was subjected to inhuman and degrading torture.

 

[Magister]

Discussion on DNA evidence....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05stg0j

 

[Vixen]

Other than Filomena's testimony that she bought bleach for the cottage and the case for bleach being left in the hall, what is the evidence that any bleach was used?

Depends what you mean by "bleach". Do you mean ammonia or peroxide, or standard soap?

 

[LondonJohn]

It's all in the autopsy report.

No, it's not. Please point to anything in the autopsy report which points (exclusively) to "inhuman and degrading torture".

Mez was subjected to inhuman and degrading torture.

No, she was not. She was subjected to a short attack (probably less than a minute in duration), culminating in the fatal stabs to the neck. Inflicted by one person, acting alone: Rudy Guede.