Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

Staged things are always done to make them look real. Do you think Raf is too dumb to know how to make it look like a real break in? Do you really think he would have thrown the rock from the inside out. Not even you would do that .

If they were staging they would have done exactly how it was done. Would you tell us how they would do it if not exactly like you think Rudi did it?

So the point is that the evidence doesn't prove the claim...but that doesn't matter? I guess the defendants are screwed.

All the while the cops had a suspect who had a clear history of committing break ins.But the of course the break in was staged because it looked real. Yeeeaaahh, now I get it.

What's missing in the concept of the staged break-in that looks perfectly like a real break-in is the concept, at trial, of BARD. If the break-in is plausibly a real break-in, the court must consider it to be real. That is, BARD favors the defense. If there is a an argument that the defense provides that is considered plausible, then the prosecution argument fails.

Example: The case from New Jersey with a trace of cocaine detected in the laundry soap. The appeal court ruled in favor of the defense, because the amount of cocaine was so small it could not be distributed. In fact, the appeals court considered that the defense argument that this was a police frame-up had credibility.

There are two other items of evidence from that case I had not brought up.

1. The police claimed the couple maintained a list of drug customers. The defense claimed that the young man was involved in amateur baseball, the lists were player rosters. Turns out that they were indeed team rosters.

2. The police claimed the couple maintained a list of drug debts to them. The defense claimed that the young woman, who had won a large settlement because she was the victim of a car accident, had lent money to family and friends. Turns out that this indeed was an accounting of money she had lent; the largest debtor was her mother.

 

[MichaelB]

New translation: Amanda Knox witness statement to police November 2, 2007

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Knox-Statement-02-Nov-2007.pdf

I've seen her say all of the questioning before the November 5/6 one was recorded.

 

[Dan O.]

The rock was thrown from the exact same spot we all think Rudi threw it. Looks exactly like a real break in because it was done as if a real break in was happening.

Exactly. There is no discernible difference therefore there is no evidence of a staging.

 

[Dan O.]

New translation: Amanda Knox witness statement to police November 2, 2007

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Knox-Statement-02-Nov-2007.pdf

Back when the email home was first being discussed, I speculated that it was a recap of just what she had been telling the police the last couple of days. Either I was right or you just made this up using existing material.

 

[Samson]

No, it was a huge production. I flew over there in June 2010 and spent about 10 days with Chris Mellas. He got me approved as a visitor and I met Amanda in prison twice for about an hour each time.

Amanda always knows she is factually innocent, and you are meeting her because you know this too.
Does she have foreknowledge of your certainty?
When you first meet her, how is she, given that she is having an encounter with someone who is possessed of a gods eye view of the process that has captured her?

I am making assumptions about your belief or certainty at this point.

 

[MichaelB]

Back when the email home was first being discussed, I speculated that it was a recap of just what she had been telling the police the last couple of days. Either I was right or you just made this up using existing material.

We'll have the Nov 3 and 4 statements translated soon.

The other thing that caught my eye was Filomena's statement on November 7. For a long time I thought it was a TJMK myth that Luca and Paola checked the car to see if Amanda or Raffaele planted something in it because they weren't asked about that when they testified.

Well it turns out it was true but they only checked after the arrests.

This is what JK wrote in his book:

It was later pointed out on the website, True Justice for Meredith Kercher, an unbiased and non-profit-making website, which originated in America and is contributed to by American and Italian lawyers, that after they had dropped Knox and Sollecito off at the police station, Luca and Paola were so concerned they ‘thoroughly checked the interior of their car for any incriminating evidence, as they were scared that something might have been planted there’.

Kercher, John (2012-04-26). Meredith: Our daughter’s murder and the heartbreaking quest for the truth (p. 89). Hodder & Stoughton. Kindle Edition.

 

[anglolawyer]

New translation: Amanda Knox witness statement to police November 2, 2007

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Knox-Statement-02-Nov-2007.pdf

That's great. Thank you MichaelB. One of my theories is confirmed: she was asked nothing which would suggest to her she was under suspicion. I have contended also that, until the 5th, she was asked nothing in any detail about how she spent the night of the 1st-2nd. A further point: she did not know that either Laura, Filomena of the boys were away. This is highly important and should (but won't) make the clean-up merchants think. Another point is that the 'nothing was taken' thing came not just from noticing what was left behind in Filomena's room but also from checking Laura's and Amanda's room (she had her rent money there).

Also, for those who think the door closed/open thing means anything, consider that what may well have happened is that Raff headed off to see the crap and turned about and followed Amanda in to Filomena's room. So the first time he noticed the door it had been opened. Alternatively, his memory was faulty. Big deal. Anyhow, let's see his initial statement too.

Grinder, I will refrain from modifying my signature if you tell us how long it should have taken the cops to drop the staged burglary theory.

 

[Strozzi]

No need to say "nothing was stolen".

I'm not saying they should never have suspected a staged break-in using the other so called "evidence" but I'm willing to bet the police thought nothing of Rafaele's comments until they were cobbling together their case weeks maybe months down the road. They used the same approach guilters use, which was to take anything they said and did and twist it to make them look guilty.

Very good point. What police and Mignini later say caused them to conclude one thing or another may just be padded explanations made later to make (rush) judgements appear rational and evidence-based.

 

[Kauffer]

That's great. Thank you MichaelB. One of my theories is confirmed: she was asked nothing which would suggest to her she was under suspicion. I have contended also that, until the 5th, she was asked nothing in any detail about how she spent the night of the 1st-2nd. A further point: she did not know that either Laura, Filomena of the boys were away. This is highly important and should (but won't) make the clean-up merchants think. Another point is that the 'nothing was taken' thing came not just from noticing what was left behind in Filomena's room but also from checking Laura's and Amanda's room (she had her rent money there).

Also, for those who think the door closed/open thing means anything, consider that what may well have happened is that Raff headed off to see the crap and turned about and followed Amanda in to Filomena's room. So the first time he noticed the door it had been opened. Alternatively, his memory was faulty. Big deal. Anyhow, let's see his initial statement too.

Grinder, I will refrain from modifying my signature if you tell us how long it should have taken the cops to drop the staged burglary theory.

We cannot really know this objectively, because we don't have the actual questions that were put to her. Yet we know she was suspected from other sources of information. This document is not what it purports to be. Consider the subject heading:"Transcript of questioning of a person informed of the facts". It isn't a transcript at all; it's a precis written up by a translator. We also know that in her 4th November interrogation, she was virtually accused of lying and still didn't sense the danger! The problem seems to be that it's not in innocent Amanda's makeup to recognise the clues that would have led her to realise the suspicion she was under.

As for the cleaning, you are right. It is inconceivable, given that Amanda could not know people would not return to the cottage, that if she was going to attempt a cleanup (a fruitless exercise anyway, for which there is no evidence), she would hardly wait until the following morning to try to get it done.

 

[Numbers]

We cannot really know this objectively, because we don't have the actual questions that were put to her. Yet we know she was suspected from other sources of information. This document is not what it purports to be. Consider the subject heading:"Transcript of questioning of a person informed of the facts". It isn't a transcript at all; it's a precis written up by a translator. We also know that in her 4th November interrogation, she was virtually accused of lying and still didn't sense the danger! The problem seems to be that it's not in innocent Amanda's makeup to recognise the clues that would have led her to realise the suspicion she was under.

As for the cleaning, you are right. It is inconceivable, given that Amanda could not know people would not return to the cottage, that if she was going to attempt a cleanup (a fruitless exercise anyway, for which there is no evidence), she would hardly wait until the following morning to try to get it done.

Depending on how much of VQA Dr. Giobbi's testimony one should take at face value, since he had decided that the break-in was a staging almost immediately after his arrival and survey of the cottage, his attention was focused on those who were close to Meredith to find a culprit by means of behavioral clues. I suggest this is a cover-up to disguise the fact that the police intended to frame whoever had the weakest alibi and was most vulnerable.

If Giobbi (and other police) had maintained a reasonable and professional view, they would have considered the possibility, which their alleged expertise did not at all negate, that the break-in was real, not staged. This would have required taking no action to arrest anyone until the forensics (DNA profiling) from the murder room and other cottage locations were available and could be compared to those close to Meredith. The BS about the cat blood from downstairs and the cat jumping to get blood on the light switch and the many other sites in the downstairs flat could then be explained honestly. Of course, this would have required a search for the relatively distant acquaintance of Meredith, the actual rapist and murderer, Rudy Guede.

 

[carbonjam72]

MigniniLand, a vacation destination for the whole family!

Exactly. There is no discernible difference therefore there is no evidence of a staging.

Didn't Mignini say to Amanda at the December 2007 interview, that he/Mignini thought the lack of her fingerprints in the house were a sign that she had engaged in a selective clean-up?

For Mignini and those of this mindset, the absence of evidence, confirms the crime they know occurred, because otherwise the evidence must be present. Since they know the defendnats are guilty, a lack of evidence implies the defendants altered the crimes scene to remove the evidence and frustrate the investigators.

So if there is evidence of guilt, the defendants are guilty. If there isn't evidence of guilt, the defendants are still guilty, except they cleaned up the evidence or staged the scene to make it look like someone else is responsible.

Either way, defendants are always guilty, and the prosecution always wins. In MigniniLand.

 

[Antony]

This conversation is about the beginning not the end. The court case isn't the issue.

Sorry, the beginning (= before the murder was discovered) isn't the issue either. Once Meredith's corpse was discovered, everything changed and all speculation should have ended about an insurance scam, why certain items weren't stolen, and what Raff meant by "nothing was stolen".

...

And we go on with the straw man.



What evidence would you accept to prove a staging?

Why does this need an answer? Anything from the wrong spray patterns for glass fragments, to signs of glass having been manually placed, to a noise of breaking glass at a time after the murder.

So if it matches the rest of the evidence that's proof it isn't staged but if it matches then it can't be staged?

Now you bring in a straw man. The defence doesn't need to prove that it couldn't be staged. As others have pointed out, if the prosecution can't prove a staging BARD, then the courts have to treat the break-in as genuine.

And it doesn't do to say that "the courts aren't the issue", because the "staged" break-in did indeed (absurdly) reach the courts as part of the prosecution case. If the police suspected a staging at the early stage, then it was fair to check for proper indications. In the absence of these indications, the "staging" hypothesis should have been dropped before any actions against suspects were taken.

Obviously successful stagings match the evidence. Tesla, damn near impossible to prove anyone ever got away except common sense.

You understand when one stages one is trying to match the rest of the scene.

"Common sense" is the curse of cases like these.

 

[Dan O.]

Didn't Mignini say to Amanda at the December 2007 interview, that he/Mignini thought the lack of her fingerprints in the house were a sign that she had engaged in a selective clean-up?

For Mignini and those of this mindset, the absence of evidence, confirms the crime they know occurred, because otherwise the evidence must be present. Since they know the defendnats are guilty, a lack of evidence implies the defendants altered the crimes scene to remove the evidence and frustrate the investigators.

So if there is evidence of guilt, the defendants are guilty. If there isn't evidence of guilt, the defendants are still guilty, except they cleaned up the evidence or staged the scene to make it look like someone else is responsible.

Either way, defendants are always guilty, and the prosecution always wins. In MigniniLand.

I have already asked in these threads: when did this supposed thourough cleaning take place? There is evidence in the fingerprints found in Amanda's room that answers this question.

 

[Grinder]

What's missing in the concept of the staged break-in that looks perfectly like a real break-in is the concept, at trial, of BARD. If the break-in is plausibly a real break-in, the court must consider it to be real. That is, BARD favors the defense. If there is a an argument that the defense provides that is considered plausible, then the prosecution argument fails.

I believe one of the things the ISC said to Hellmann was that each piece of evidence doesn't need to be certain but rather all of the evidence needs to be taken as a whole.

 

[Grinder]

So the point is that the evidence doesn't prove the claim...but that doesn't matter? I guess the defendants are screwed.

All the while the cops had a suspect who had a clear history of committing break ins.But the of course the break in was staged because it looked real. Yeeeaaahh, now I get it.

Tesla I'm not talking about two weeks later. I'm talking about the initial times. Before the 5th and 6th. They looked at Patrick and thought no way he climbed in that window.

It isn't that because it looked real that it is faked, but rather that the demands by people here to prove staging can't necessarily be met even if it were staged. I'm sure many insurance frauds and murder stagings can't be proven by the staging but other evidence such as means and motive come into play such as an insurance policy or reason to end a marriage without the mess of a divorce

In this case had the kids been involved and let's just say footprints matched and weren't just compatible and the knife matched the outline and wounds and had Mez's blood do you believe the prosecution would have to prove the staging?

It is obvious that a well done staging won't leave evidence but that doesn't mean it wasn't staged.

 

[carbonjam72]

I have already asked in these threads: when did this supposed thourough cleaning take place? There is evidence in the fingerprints found in Amanda's room that answers this question.

I was mentioning this argument by Dr Mignini to draw a comparison in the thought process for suggesting that a break-in that "looks real", makes for a stronger argument that it was staged. The argument strikes me as circular, fulfilling the presumption of guilt.

 

[Dan O.]

No evidence that they were ever in the murder room. No evidence of a cleanup. No evidence of a staged breakin. How do you put this together as a whole and come up with guilty?

 

[Bill Williams]

What's missing in the concept of the staged break-in that looks perfectly like a real break-in is the concept, at trial, of BARD. If the break-in is plausibly a real break-in, the court must consider it to be real. That is, BARD favors the defense. If there is a an argument that the defense provides that is considered plausible, then the prosecution argument fails.

I believe one of the things the ISC said to Hellmann was that each piece of evidence doesn't need to be certain but rather all of the evidence needs to be taken as a whole.

I'm no lawyer, and even less an Italian lawyer, but it seems to me that the ISC in 2013 missed an important modifier to that bit, "each piece of evidence."

It should have said something akin to, "each piece of evidence with merit."

Grinder: the one bit of positive evidence you've cited that argues FOR staging of the break-in, is that the cops were initially zero'ing in on Sollecito, Knox, AND Lumumba. The positive part of that is that is would have been reasonable for PLE/Mignini to derive from that, that none of those three, really, was capable of the climb.

The stunner, then, is that when Guede is located, when Guede admits right from the git-go to have been in the cottage at the crucial time, and when Lumumba has a rock-solid alibi - why that initial "positive piece of evidence" simply did not collapse into dust?

It is there with Guede, right there right then, that PLE/Mignini went off the rails completely.

We can argue until we're blue in the face who is right and who is wrong about the "beginning" of suspicion that the break-in was a staging. I guess that is an issue which can keep this thread in busy-work until Marasca's motivations report comes out.

But by any measure, buy the time Lumumba is gone and Guede is in, all suspicion of a faked/staged break-in, including the impossibility of the climb through Filomena's window, should have passed into history. For me that's the issue.

That it's being debated amongst supporters! 7 1/2 years later is the height of ludicrousness.

 

[Bill Williams]

No evidence that they were ever in the murder room. No evidence of a cleanup. No evidence of a staged breakin. How do you put this together as a whole and come up with guilty?

Ah, er, by considering "all the other evidence"? (How'd I do?)

 

[carbonjam72]

Tesla I'm not talking about two weeks later. I'm talking about the initial times. Before the 5th and 6th. They looked at Patrick and thought no way he climbed in that window.

It isn't that because it looked real that it is faked, but rather that the demands by people here to prove staging can't necessarily be met even if it were staged. I'm sure many insurance frauds and murder stagings can't be proven by the staging but other evidence such as means and motive come into play such as an insurance policy or reason to end a marriage without the mess of a divorce

In this case had the kids been involved and let's just say footprints matched and weren't just compatible and the knife matched the outline and wounds and had Mez's blood do you believe the prosecution would have to prove the staging?

It is obvious that a well done staging won't leave evidence but that doesn't mean it wasn't staged.

If the two defendants in this case cannot be shown to have left the apartment that night, it follows they cannot be shown to have committed the staging of a break-in at Amanda's apartment.

The prosecution forensic tech destroyed the hard drives, in sequence, one after another, that Raf says in his book would have supported his alibi. And this destruction of computers & alibi has happened recently in another high profile case in Italy. In addition, the police and the judge Riccardieu(?) refused to collect 2 CCTV videos en route from Raf's apartment to the cottage, until the evidence had been destroyed. The prosecution refused to test the glass, to support the window had been broken from the outside, rather than the inside.

If you're trying to isolate the evidence they knew in the early days (before Nov 5/6), they certainly did know there was only one set of footprints in wet blood, even if they got the footprints owner wrong, because they couldn't count the rings in a shoe. And they certainly had the DNA results from Nov 6 showing the presence of a single unknown male from inside Meredith's body, yet that information was withheld by Mignini from Judge Matteini at a November 8, 2007 trial session (IIRC).

Even if they got over excited and arrested Patrick and Amanda & Raf on the basis of Amanda's statement, the refusal to let them go after Rudy Guede was identified, arrested, and interrogated on December 7, 2007, is incompatible with Mignini being honest or sane.

How could they hold Amanda and Raffaele after they heard Rudy's skype call saying 'Amanda wasn't there'?

We keep trying to make excuses, to twist and fit the Italian law enforcement into something that doesn't resemble a bunch of crooked morons. Personally, I give up.