Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Where does Rudy say he wrote "AF" on the wall? Why is rudy making the above statement? What could he have used for ink if he could not find a pen? Why do I not expect a straight answer from Vixen?

In his statement. Boy, you guys sure are ignorant about the case!

------------
Guede told the friend that he arrived at the cottage near the centre of Perugia nine minutes late. "We kissed each other a bit, we touched each other a bit, I didn't rape her," he said. He then felt a pain in his stomach and went to the bathroom.

Guede said he had his iPod on and did not hear someone enter the cottage. "Then I heard Mez shouting," he added. When he entered Meredith's room he saw a man he described as "an Italian" who attacked him and injured his right hand. Guede tried to defend himself with a chair. The man then fled.

He said: "I saw that blood, it terrified me so I took her in my arms. I tried to help her. I dabbed at her wound with a towel, she tried to speak . . . she said two letters, I think A and F . . . I wrote them on the wall." He then fled in a panic.

An investigator said that Guede's version was "ridiculous". There were no traces of such initials on the wall of the bedroom and Meredith's friends said she did not mention meeting Guede to them.

The evidence against Guede includes a print of his palm on a bloody pillow. DNA tests also showed that he had had sex with Meredith.

25.11.2007 TIMES John Follain

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article76033.ece

 

[acbytesla]

<Heavy sigh> It's all in the police statements.

That's not a source. A source would be Detective so and so on this date said that said Amanda Knox said "quote"

Otherwise it is merely bs.

 

[Vixen]

No mention of the alleged 215 in Massei weird huh?

I thought you said Amanda took out all sorts of cash so what's starnge about her having money?

Owen obviously had bad info as has been demonstrated. can you provide a good source? Court records?

IIRC The police charged Amanda with theft, but Massei dismissed it.

Look it up on the Massei report.

 

[Vixen]

And here you go again, trying to challenge me with mere assertion. Have you actually read the email? You surely cannot have read it and believe what you are saying is correct,

I've put your claims up again. Why you persist, I know not, but you are demonstrably wrong.

You do not, despite being asked, respond to the challenge to the first part of your claim which I disproved, where you say Amanda was alarmed to find the door open. She was not alarmed.

The second part, where you claim Amanda stated she was "frantically banging on Mez's door" is wrong too.

You describe Amanda arriving at the flat, finding the door open, being alarmed by the door being open and as a result of this frantically banging on Kercher's door! Nothing of this is true.

Doubtless, you put this up to convince yourself that the actions Amanda took after leaving the flat and returning to Raffaele's were inappropriate.

Here is the email. Read it please, identify the evidence and withdraw your claims.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/email.html

-------

at first i thought she was alseep so i knocked gently, but when she
didnt respond i knocked louder and louder until i was really banging
on her door and shouting her name. no response. panicing, i ran out
onto our terrace to see if maybe i could see over the ledge into her
room from the window, but i couldnt see in. bad angle. i then went
into the bathroom where i had dried my hair and looked really quickley
into the toilet. in my panic i thought i hadnt seen anything there,
which to me meant whoever was in my house had been there when i had
been there.
-------
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Email_Home

George Orwell said, "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king".

It would appear many of the posters here have been led by the one-eyed man, hence the astonishingly distorted views of police conspiracies and DNA scientists on the fiddle.

 

[Dan O.]

The bank statements show her funds were running low and she was withdrawing large sums, giving rise to speculation of a drugs problem. Police confirmed she rang her dealer before and after the murder.

The bank statements are available online. What was her balance as of November 1? Have you done an accounting to see how much excess was withdrawn over the 300 euro per month rent? Were there school fees or supplies Amanda needed to buy? There are shopping bags in her room, what else did she buy after moving in?

We have been over the drug use and the phone records. You Vixen are making defamatory statements.

 

[RoseMontague]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article1873606.ece

Pay the GBP1 pcm to read it.

I don't think so, not that trash. Try using a source we don't have to pay to see.

 

[Dan O.]

NB: this is from memory, so do check times for yourself.

Your memory is faulty. try again. Perhaps you could even scroll back a few pages and find the timeline I already posted. [ETA: First posted 12th September 2010 05:35 PM]

 

[RoseMontague]

In his statement. Boy, you guys sure are ignorant about the case!

------------
Guede told the friend that he arrived at the cottage near the centre of Perugia nine minutes late. "We kissed each other a bit, we touched each other a bit, I didn't rape her," he said. He then felt a pain in his stomach and went to the bathroom.

Guede said he had his iPod on and did not hear someone enter the cottage. "Then I heard Mez shouting," he added. When he entered Meredith's room he saw a man he described as "an Italian" who attacked him and injured his right hand. Guede tried to defend himself with a chair. The man then fled.

He said: "I saw that blood, it terrified me so I took her in my arms. I tried to help her. I dabbed at her wound with a towel, she tried to speak . . . she said two letters, I think A and F . . . I wrote them on the wall." He then fled in a panic.

An investigator said that Guede's version was "ridiculous". There were no traces of such initials on the wall of the bedroom and Meredith's friends said she did not mention meeting Guede to them.

The evidence against Guede includes a print of his palm on a bloody pillow. DNA tests also showed that he had had sex with Meredith.

25.11.2007 TIMES John Follain

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article76033.ece

Follain's articles are crap.

 

[RoseMontague]

As you no doubt are aware there are two police squads in Italy, postal police and the carabinieri, a quasi-military style Flying Squad.

Do you have an explanation for Amanda's claim in her email home she was so alarmed on coming home circa 10:30 to find the door swinging open, etc, that she was frantically banging on Mez' door, but later, she assured the postal police it was quite normal for Mez' door to be closed?

I feel deja vu coming on, don't tell me, the police misunderstood her Italian.

-------

at first i thought she was alseep so i knocked gently, but when she
didnt respond i knocked louder and louder until i was really banging
on her door and shouting her name. no response. panicing, i ran out
onto our terrace to see if maybe i could see over the ledge into her
room from the window, but i couldnt see in. bad angle. i then went
into the bathroom where i had dried my hair and looked really quickley
into the toilet. in my panic i thought i hadnt seen anything there,
which to me meant whoever was in my house had been there when i had
been there.
-------
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Email_Home

George Orwell said, "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king".

It would appear many of the posters here have been led by the one-eyed man, hence the astonishingly distorted views of police conspiracies and DNA scientists on the fiddle.

You claimed she did this after she found the door open when she first arrived. That was not true. This part is after her return with Raffaele.

 

[RoseMontague]

Boy, you guys sure are ignorant about the case!

Nope.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

In his statement. Boy, you guys sure are ignorant about the case!

------------
Guede told the friend that he arrived at the cottage near the centre of Perugia nine minutes late. "We kissed each other a bit, we touched each other a bit, I didn't rape her," he said. He then felt a pain in his stomach and went to the bathroom.

Guede said he had his iPod on and did not hear someone enter the cottage. "Then I heard Mez shouting," he added. When he entered Meredith's room he saw a man he described as "an Italian" who attacked him and injured his right hand. Guede tried to defend himself with a chair. The man then fled.

He said: "I saw that blood, it terrified me so I took her in my arms. I tried to help her. I dabbed at her wound with a towel, she tried to speak . . . she said two letters, I think A and F . . . I wrote them on the wall." He then fled in a panic.

An investigator said that Guede's version was "ridiculous". There were no traces of such initials on the wall of the bedroom and Meredith's friends said she did not mention meeting Guede to them.

The evidence against Guede includes a print of his palm on a bloody pillow. DNA tests also showed that he had had sex with Meredith.

25.11.2007 TIMES John Follain

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article76033.ece

You seem to be posting claims which are solely supported by news articles from relatively early in the history of the case.

Here at the JREF forums we tend to go for the best sources first, those being the most reliable. Peer-reviewed scholarly papers and specialist books being most reliable, for example, with court documents being less reliable, and news stories in the Daily Mail right down the bottom of the hierarchy.

If something in a court transcript contradicts a peer-reviewed paper we would believe the peer-reviewed paper and disbelieve the transcript, generally speaking. If something in the court transcript contradicts the Daily Mail, we'd believe the transcript and disbelieve the rag, generally speaking.

A lot of what you are posting comes from the least reliable sources you could possibly find, and contradicts substantially more reliable sources. This is the exact opposite of critical thinking.

A lot of 9/11 deniers use a similar thinking strategy. They desperately want to believe in a conspiracy, so they cite news articles from very shortly after the attacks which were often confused or in error as being absolute, incontrovertible truth and believe those articles over much, much better supported evidence put together later. The trap is elevating things you like to the status of truth, rather than things which are reliable.

 

[Kauffer]

-------

at first i thought she was alseep so i knocked gently, but when she
didnt respond i knocked louder and louder until i was really banging
on her door and shouting her name. no response. panicing, i ran out
onto our terrace to see if maybe i could see over the ledge into her
room from the window, but i couldnt see in. bad angle. i then went
into the bathroom where i had dried my hair and looked really quickley
into the toilet. in my panic i thought i hadnt seen anything there,
which to me meant whoever was in my house had been there when i had
been there.
-------
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Email_Home

George Orwell said, "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king".

It would appear many of the posters here have been led by the one-eyed man, hence the astonishingly distorted views of police conspiracies and DNA scientists on the fiddle.

NO NO NO NO NO! This is not what happened on Amanda's first visit to the cottage in the morning, which is what you claimed.

I'll put it up yet again:

You describe Amanda arriving at the flat, finding the door open, being alarmed by the door being open and as a result of this frantically banging on Kercher's door! Nothing of this is true.

The extract from her email, which you quote, refers to Amanda's SECOND visit to the cottage, with Raffaele, shortly before the arrival of the postale police and the discovery of the body.

Do you understand now? Or do you need further help?

Kindly withdraw the allegations you made.

This was your original post:

"Do you have an explanation for Amanda's claim in her email home she was so alarmed on coming home circa 10:30 to find the door swinging open, etc, that she was frantically banging on Mez' door, but later, she assured the postal police it was quite normal for Mez' door to be closed?"

Now, will you withdraw this and admit you are wrong?

 

[Kauffer]

You seem to be posting claims which are solely supported by news articles from relatively early in the history of the case.

Here at the JREF forums we tend to go for the best sources first, those being the most reliable. Peer-reviewed scholarly papers and specialist books being most reliable, for example, with court documents being less reliable, and news stories in the Daily Mail right down the bottom of the hierarchy.

If something in a court transcript contradicts a peer-reviewed paper we would believe the peer-reviewed paper and disbelieve the transcript, generally speaking. If something in the court transcript contradicts the Daily Mail, we'd believe the transcript and disbelieve the rag, generally speaking.

A lot of what you are posting comes from the least reliable sources you could possibly find, and contradicts substantially more reliable sources. This is the exact opposite of critical thinking.

A lot of 9/11 deniers use a similar thinking strategy. They desperately want to believe in a conspiracy, so they cite news articles from very shortly after the attacks which were often confused or in error as being absolute, incontrovertible truth and believe those articles over much, much better supported evidence put together later. The trap is elevating things you like to the status of truth, rather than things which are reliable.

This +1

 

[Bill Williams]

In his statement. Boy, you guys sure are ignorant about the case!
------------
Guede told the friend that he arrived at the cottage near the centre of Perugia nine minutes late. "We kissed each other a bit, we touched each other a bit, I didn't rape her," he said. He then felt a pain in his stomach and went to the bathroom.

Guede said he had his iPod on and did not hear someone enter the cottage. "Then I heard Mez shouting," he added. When he entered Meredith's room he saw a man he described as "an Italian" who attacked him and injured his right hand. Guede tried to defend himself with a chair. The man then fled.

He said: "I saw that blood, it terrified me so I took her in my arms. I tried to help her. I dabbed at her wound with a towel, she tried to speak . . . she said two letters, I think A and F . . . I wrote them on the wall." He then fled in a panic.

An investigator said that Guede's version was "ridiculous". There were no traces of such initials on the wall of the bedroom and Meredith's friends said she did not mention meeting Guede to them.

The evidence against Guede includes a print of his palm on a bloody pillow. DNA tests also showed that he had had sex with Meredith.

25.11.2007 TIMES John Follain

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article76033.ece

LOL!

 

[Numbers]

I always want to laugh at those that are so convinced that the police do not engage in "framing" suspects. While it might not be common place, there is no doubt that it happens. I don't know for sure if the DNA in this case is the result of corruption, I'm convinced that the omission of the negative TMB tests, the attempt of trying to present the false documents for the controls and Rinaldi's testimony is misconduct. I'm not convinced about the computer drives although that seems suspicious as well.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

For the US, there is some quantitative information on official misconduct in the National Registry of Exonerations. This data includes "framing" in the sense of making an innocent person appear guilty - since all these cases are of wrongfully convicted persons who have been exonerated. And until the cases were resolved, with exonerations, only a few persons may have realized that these were innocents being "framed". The police or prosecutor may have in some cases have believed that they were practicing "noble corruption" to assure that the accused and therefore guilty persons (in the view of the authorities) were "justly" convicted. The data, however, does not further divide the official misconduct category by whether or not officials believed the accused innocent but made them appear guilty.

Some statistics for contributing factor, for the US, from 1989 to March 12, 2015, for homicide cases in which there was an exoneration:

Perjury or false accusation: 477/708 cases = 67%
Official misconduct: 423/708 cases = 60%
Mistaken witness ID: 168/708 cases = 24%
False or misleading forensics: 159/708 = 22%
False confession: 149/708 cases = 21%

For some cases, there was more than one contributing factor, so totals add up to more than 100%.

Official misconduct is higher for homicide cases than for other types of cases in the National Registry of Exonerations; the overall rate was:

Official misconduct: 727/1597 cases = 46%

One conclusion is that the Amanda Knox - Raffaele Sollecito case is not necessarily dissimilar from homicide cases with wrongful convictions in the US in terms of contributing factors. However, there are of course differences, one of which I suggest for the case in Italy is the arbitrary or biased procedures and/or judgments of some of the judges.

Source: http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/ExonerationsContribFactorsByCrime.aspx#

 

[Strozzi]

NO NO NO NO NO! This is not what happened on Amanda's first visit to the cottage in the morning, which is what you claimed.

I'll put it up yet again:

You describe Amanda arriving at the flat, finding the door open, being alarmed by the door being open and as a result of this frantically banging on Kercher's door! Nothing of this is true.

The extract from her email, which you quote, refers to Amanda's SECOND visit to the cottage, with Raffaele, shortly before the arrival of the postale police and the discovery of the body.

Do you understand now? Or do you need further help?

Kindly withdraw the allegations you made.

This was your original post:

"Do you have an explanation for Amanda's claim in her email home she was so alarmed on coming home circa 10:30 to find the door swinging open, etc, that she was frantically banging on Mez' door, but later, she assured the postal police it was quite normal for Mez' door to be closed?"

Now, will you withdraw this and admit you are wrong?

I will withdraw it for her. Vixen is unavailable at the moment. She will be back in the morning.

 

[Desert Fox]

I will withdraw it for her. Vixen is indisposed at the moment. She will be back in the morning.

What, into kink and tied up for the moment

 

[Strozzi]

Numbers, thank you for posting in #1615 (above) the data on factors that contributed to wrongful convictions. It is very sobering to see the prevalence of mistaken identifications and official misconduct in wrongful convictions.

 

[Numbers]

Numbers, thank you for posting in #1615 (above) the data on factors that contributed to wrongful convictions. It is very sobering to see the prevalence of mistaken identifications and official misconduct in wrongful convictions.

It is truly shocking. There are several pieces of information not readily available, to my knowledge, that would be useful. These are:

1. The total number of convictions in the US for the period covered by the National Registry - that is, 1989 to the present - for each of the crime categories they use (homicide, sexual assault, child sex abuse, other crime), so that the rate of wrongful convictions per sentencing year could be found.

2. The trends over time in numbers of cases with exonerations compared to those without - that is, has the frequency of wrongful convictions changed over time - for the several categories; and

3. Whether there have been changes in the duration of incarceration for the exonerated (wrongfully convicted) over time. That is, are the wrongful convictions being recognized and corrected sooner now than previously, or not.

 

[TruthCalls]

He entered the room in which the dead girl was lying on the floor, almost entirely covered by a duvet, leaving visible only "a part of the head stained with blood and the left foot, which was sticking out from the lower edge of the duvet" (page 2 of the report). He did not do any tests, as he had been asked to preserve the crime scene as perfectly as possible in order to allow the scientific police to carry out their work.
110
[103] However, he did note (at around 14:40 or 15:00 pm) that the girl's foot presented "cadaveric rigidity...of the ankle and the toes" (page 6, hearing of April 3, 2009).​

rig·or mor·'tisstiffening of the body, 1-7 hours after death, from hardening of the muscular tissues as a consequence of the coagulation of the myosinogen and paramyosinogen; it disappears after 1-6 days or when decomposition begins.
Synonym(s): cadaveric rigidity, postmortem rigidity

At the time of death, a condition called "primary flaccidity" occurs. Following this, the muscles stiffen in rigor mortis. All muscles in the body are affected. Starting between two to six hours following death, rigor mortis begins with the eyelids, neck, and jaw. The sequence may be due to different lactic acid levels among different muscles, which is directly related to the difference in glycogen levels and different types of muscle fibers. Rigor mortis then spreads to the other muscles within the next four to six hours, including the internal organs. The onset of rigor mortis is affected by the individual's age, sex, physical condition, and muscular build. Rigor mortis may not be perceivable in many infant and child corpses due to their smaller muscle mass
​

ETA - rigor had set in and he did feel the body temp and could tell she had been dead for some time. The ICSI came from Rome and didn't arrive until 7 pm. Is it standard policy to send the Rome team out or did Mignini decide that would be the way to delay and therefore give him more latitude to frame the kids?

Many posts (pages, actually) behind and so maybe this is now exhausted but.. I am still confused on your point. As you're own cite indicates, rigor sets in from 1-7 hours after death and remains for 1-6 days. The body was discovered just after 13:00 and Lalli arrives 1-2 hours after that. At that point Meredith could have been dead for only 3-4 hours, rigor would have set in and taking body temperature, via the liver so as to not interfere with a sexual assault examination, would have been very useful. Conversely, since I suspect Meredith died closer to 21:30 the evening before and therefore would have been dead for 18-19 hours, a significantly lower body temperature would have been observed which would have been useful in debunking the more extreme 'later' TOD estimates often bandied about. In any event, I do not disagree that there was more convincing evidence that points to a 21:30-22:00 TOD than body temperature. I just find the directive to not take it odd and it seems to have set the tone for a very poorly executed forensic investigation.

On a side note.. re; luminol prints. Aside from negative TMB, most of the prints also tested negative for Meredith'd DNA. The pro-guilt argument of diluted blood to weak for TMB does not address this issue.