Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Here's what IIP says about bleach receipts:

1) Lie - Amanda Knox was seen waiting at the store the morning after Meredith was murdered, waiting to buy bleach. It was widely reported that the authorities had bleach receipts proving that Amanda purchased bleach. On November 19, 2007, Richard Owen reported for the UK Times that police had found receipts showing purchases of bleach on the morning after the murder. The information was specific: one alleged purchase was made at 8:30, and a second was made at 9:15. No receipts were ever found. Then, in a November 25, 2007, report, Owen quoted an apparently official source as saying that the entire cottage, except for Meredith's room and the bathroom she shared with Amanda, had been "thoroughly cleaned with bleach."

It would appear they don't have more precise information such as an official police statement.

Here's what the PG Wiki says:

In early reports, there was a claim that bleach receipts had been located at Raffaele's apartment. This is not true. During the search of his apartment, the police did photograph and collect a series of receipts, but none of them were for bleach. The police also collected two bottles of bleach, which according to Raffaele's maid should not have been there. The reporting, that the receipts for the purchase of bleach were recovered, was incorrect.

I wonder if this is the maid that was instructed not to use the non-existence bleach.

 

[carbonjam72]

Why did the police and prosecution arrest, or wage a long, wrongful prosecution against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito? There are several possibilities, and only one of these possibilities seems to have been emphasized by Moore and Clemente and some others. Here is a brief listing, as I understand the possibilities:

1. The police, seeing the break-in involved a rock thrown through a window and a climb to a second story, recognized the MO of Rudy Guede, a (supposed) police informant (or person otherwise protected, such as by his (former?) relationship to the wealthiest and most powerful family in Perugia. Therefore, they sought to direct attention to Meredith's close associates as suspects.

2. The search for convenient suspects. The police saw the break-in and decided it would be a troublesome effort to attempt to solve the case by seeking anyone who might actually have committed the crime that way. So they recognized, as amoral, unprofessional police do, that they should concentrate on finding someone close to Meredith who would be vulnerable to suspicion, for example, by having a relatively weak alibi, and/or by being liable to be portrayed as "strange" or "evil" or "just a foreign slut".

3. The police had reason to suspect Amanda Knox of the crime because of her odd behavior. She apparently, according to Dr. Giobbi (see his testimony), wiggled her hips while putting on shoe-covers. She cried and/or she didn't cry. She had an Italian boyfriend who she had known for only a little more than a week, and stayed overnight with him, and he seemed interested in her, even coming to the police station to see her. Only the boyfriend was her alibi for the night of the murder. And she had the keys to the apartment. (Some of this may seem like case #2.)

4. The police were just really incompetent and lazy.

5. As a corollary, the prosecution had to continue to protect the police from being accused of a criminal act (CP 377-bis. punishment 2-6 years in prison) because of the "special methods" they used to extract a statement from Amanda Knox during the interrogation of Nov. 5/6, 2007, when they "knew" she was guiltly of something. Evidence that the police and prosecution were certain Amanda was accusing them of a criminal act: She was accused of calunnia against the police by Dr. Mignini in 2009. "Calunnia" as a legal term in Italy means to falsely accuse - to the police or a judicial authority - someone of committing a crime.

We've been kicking these ideas around for a while, so I'd just like to inject a few ideas I hope we could agree on.

1. SOCIAL PRESSURE - There was enormous pressure on the police to resolve this crime. Pressure from the media coverage, and pressure from the local authorities and business community. The local economy was heavily dependent on students spending money, and they were fleeing in droves. Every day was a worsening calamity. Panic on the police's part to solve the case asap, does not make for the best decisions or most careful work.

2. INEXPERIENCE FORENSIC TEAMS - Perugia police had not much experience in murder, much less high profile crimes. Stefanoni had to get permission to be both crime scene inspector and lab tech, losing a level of independent review that might well have avoided this miscarriage of justice had that separation of powers been maintained.

3. PROFESSIONAL STAKES - Mignini himself, along with his former colleague Michelle Giuttari, had just then been indicted for trial relating to excesses in office relating to their investigation and prosecution of the 'Narducci Trail' cases, an offshoot of Giuttari's 'satanic sect sex orgy murder theory' relating to the Monster of Florence crimes.

Mignini immediately characterized the Kercher crime as being of the same type, a multi-attacker sex crime related to the "rites of Halloween". Mignini had been in communication with Carlizzi from day 1 of the crime, and sought to portray the crime in eerily similar language to Giuttari's description of the "satanic rites" he alleged (bogus-ly) were at issue in the Monster of Florence crimes.

4. CONTINUITY OF FRAUD FROM MOF CASES- Giuttari was principally responsible for trumping up the false convictions of Vanni and Lotti as accomplices to the innocent Pacciani for the Monster of Florence murders, and doing so with the assistance of his four bogus tramp 'algebraic witnesses'.

5. GIOBBI & GIDES - Giobbi came in from Rome, on the first day of the crime scene. Mignini had characterized the crime as fitting into the pattern that Guittari's GIDES unit (the special unit formed to pursue the "masterminds" behind the satanic sect they believed responsible for the MOF crimes). Giobbi & Mignini may not have been looking for a single perp, but rather looking for a multi-attacker conspiracy. Manufacturing another group murder satanic sect case would be another feather in the cap for them all.

6. While Mignini incarceration of Spezi and unauthorized investigation of other journalists and officials led to the indictments for abuse of office, Mignini had already pressed ahead with his next 'satanic sect case' against the Florence pharmacist Francesco Calamandrei. In the Calamandrei case, Mignini relied on the same four bogus 'algebraic witnesses' provided by Giuttari.

Mignini also relied on an associate of Carlizzi who gave testimony against Spezi, that Mignini kept under seal using special anti-mafia/terrorism laws to keep that testimony and its source secret.

7. Rudy Guede had a history of burglary, appears to have eluded prosecution, and received assistance when busted in Milan, to enable his return to Perugia on the next train. There is a strong possibility Rudy was an informer, and I would say it is a certainty he was an low level criminal with a pattern of similar breaking and entry, habitating crime scenes, and brandishing a knife when confronted during his crimes. Napoleoni acknowledge the police were familiar with Guede from his burglaries in Perugia before the murder, so that seems to be worth/justify exploring what Napoleone meant by that.

Hoping this post wouldn't bloat, so I'll end it here.

The point is, Mignini madness must be considered a factor as well. The prosecutor in his abuse of office case described him as having "fallen prey to a kind of delirium". So demanding a logical train of thought from the Perugians, is not necessarily justified.

 

[Grinder]

I found the genesis of the bleach receipt at the presser. And from a totally reliable source. I can see why Moore would accept it Well not exactly at the presser but what they did say at a presser about DNA will rock the science and told to us by

Barbie

Investigators also said the knife had been bleached (bleach removes blood but not DNA, investigators said at a press conference), and that they had found receipts in Sollecito's apartment dated Nov. 2—the morning after the murder—for the purchase of two liters of bleach.

Here's more from the same article:

Nor does anyone dispute that Lumumba had some sort of interest in Kercher; police say their records show numerous calls to her cell phone in the days leading up to her murder. Sollecito's defense team says their client stands by his initial testimony to investigators—that he was home surfing the Internet the night of the murder, and that Knox came to his house around 1 a.m.

Barbie, barbie, barbie. A reliable source if there ever was one.

 

[zotz]

The police wanted to solve the case quickly. They were supremely overconfident in their professional instinct. They went with first impressions and after that confirmation bias took hold. Then it became a battle of wills. The police and prosecutors became victims of tunnel vision. They did not secure the crime scene for six weeks. They didn't collect important pieces of evidence, including the victim's purse and bloody clothing for many weeks! They left the clothing of the main suspect, Amanda, in her room, and then claimed that it was missing! And then they found it. ( Oops! )

This wasn't mere incompetence. It was gross incompetence. The supposed expert, Stefanoni, doesn't change gloves while collecting evidence and neglegently gets blood on her gloves while swabbing blood samples. And this is their expert! The police computer experts destroyed three computer hard drives ( oops again! ) and apparently lost Amanda's digital camera ( oops! #3).

The police almost immediately suspect that the break-in was faked because of glass on top of clothing, nothing was stolen, the burglar would have had to climb four meters and the rock was too heavy to be thrown through the second story window from below. So, was this crime scene investigated? Of course not! Why bother? They do not even have a photo of glass on top of the clothes.

So it's obviously an inside job. Next they observe the behavior of the occupants and determine who is behaving suspiciously. Then the police record the suspects conversations covertly and then after four days of interrogation subject them to the Reid technique and break them. In less than a week, voila!, case closed.

Yes, there is a mystery. It is why anyone still believes anything that the police and prosecutors have said.

 

[acbytesla]

Hey, I just purchased 6 bottles of bleach. Does that mean I'm cleaning up after a murder?

 

[MichaelB]

Sophie Purton witness statement 2-Nov-2007: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Sophie-Purton-Statement-2-Nov-2007.pdf

Similar to Frosts and says Amanda and Meredith were friends.

 

[acbytesla]

Sophie Purton witness statement 2-Nov-2007: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Sophie-Purton-Statement-2-Nov-2007.pdf

Similar to Frosts and says Amanda and Meredith were friends.

Of course. Any real animosity they might have had was the result of them being given made to think that Amanda was the killer of their friend.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill I hate urban legends. I hate factoids and false memes. You weren't paying attention until at least the Hellmann verdict and some say even much later .

The M&C vids were made recently, the M vid in 2015. The defense (legal and media) didn't take all that long to get going.

So now that they have been found not guilty, I see no reason not to drill down on both the guilt and innocent narratives. Obviously the PG narratives have been torn apart here for years.

There probably is no reason not to.

What is of interest, really, is the reason to do it. "The" guilt narrative does not survive much scrutiny, witness two things:

1) the 27 March ISC ruling
2) the fact that there is no "the" guilt narrative. Massei and Nencini, for instance, are describing different crimes; different motives, different order of events, different initiator of the crime, etc., etc., etc., etc.​

I tend to agree with DougM. There is not a commentator, author or journalist who hasn't made a basic error or two - on the innocence side particularly.

Now that the case is finished and decided, I still am not sure why one would drill down to discredit Moore, Clemente, or early FOA's unless someone had some other, unknown agenda to do it.

I still do not know what that is - except to try to get into the conversation that the FOA early on was wrong, later innocence advocates had their own falsehoods.... all the will still claiming that they got the final product right!

I don't get it. True there is no reason not to drill down, what I'm scratching my head for is the reason to do it - it seems (YMMV) that the intent is to embarrass those who - weirdly - got it right!!!!

 

[Numbers]

I found the genesis of the bleach receipt at the presser. And from a totally reliable source. I can see why Moore would accept it Well not exactly at the presser but what they did say at a presser about DNA will rock the science and told to us by

Barbie

Investigators also said the knife had been bleached (bleach removes blood but not DNA, investigators said at a press conference), and that they had found receipts in Sollecito's apartment dated Nov. 2—the morning after the murder—for the purchase of two liters of bleach.
Here's more from the same article:

Nor does anyone dispute that Lumumba had some sort of interest in Kercher; police say their records show numerous calls to her cell phone in the days leading up to her murder. Sollecito's defense team says their client stands by his initial testimony to investigators—that he was home surfing the Internet the night of the murder, and that Knox came to his house around 1 a.m.

Barbie, barbie, barbie. A reliable source if there ever was one.

Grinder, Grinder, Grinder...you didn't give the cite details for Barbie's article.

How can someone such as myself, who was not present at the police press conference, and has never seen a video or transcript of it, and would need an English translation to understand what had been said, evaluate what Barbie has, you claim, written about it? And I have no way to evaluate the level of accuracy of Barbie's reporting - maybe sometimes it isn't just made up?

How can anyone evaluate what Steve Moore stated he had heard about the presser if Barbie's is the only detailed report? Was there no Italian media coverage of a police press conference about the solving of an infamous murder case?

 

[acbytesla]

There probably is no reason not to.

What is of interest, really, is the reason to do it. "The" guilt narrative does not survive much scrutiny, witness two things:

1) the 27 March ISC ruling
2) the fact that there is no "the" guilt narrative. Massei and Nencini, for instance, are describing different crimes; different motives, different order of events, different initiator of the crime, etc., etc., etc., etc.​

I tend to agree with DougM. There is not a commentator, author or journalist who hasn't made a basic error or two - on the innocence side particularly.

Now that the case is finished and decided, I still am not sure why one would drill down to discredit Moore, Clemente, or early FOA's unless someone had some other, unknown agenda to do it.

I still do not know what that is - except to try to get into the conversation that the FOA early on was wrong, later innocence advocates had their own falsehoods.... all the will still claiming that they got the final product right!

I don't get it. True there is no reason not to drill down, what I'm scratching my head for is the reason to do it - it seems (YMMV) that the intent is to embarrass those who - weirdly - got it right!!!!

Grinder is Grinder. He has always nitpicked. But he keeps us on our toes. He'll jump back on here to say that Moore's statement (which was wrong) is not a nitpick I don't agree with Moore's opinion that Rudy was some kind of informer just because the cops in Milan let him go. Rudy was not from Milan and this was a petty crime ( criminal trespass and posession of stolen goods) And maybe the jail was full and the cops didn't want to house him.

But I also think Moore is a smart cop and a smart articlate advocate. 99.9999 percent of the public will never know Moore made this mistake and even fewer would care.

 

[Numbers]

....

1. Your point here would be great if I had ever said in any way shape or form that they were relevant to guilt or innocence.
....

[quote[They may be evidence that Moore got some details confused. He was certainly correct in stating that there was no forensic or other evidence of a clean-up of the crime scene.

2. Yes and when he joined in that was already a well know fact by even the people in the peanut gallery.

....

3. Rudi doesn't need a lawyer for what I'm discussing unless he can sue for defamation but the statute of limitations has probably run out.

....[/QUOTE]

1. So why are you discussing Moore's confusion at all? Especially if he is relying on misinformation from Barbie's article, for which you neglected to provide the citation detail (I assume this was an oversight on your part rather than a nefarious act. )

2. If I understood Moore's statements correctly, he was discussing his personal reasons for realizing the prosecution case was bogus, and not conveying new information.

I understand such apparent sudden and striking realizations because of my own experience in learning about this case. For example, when CCTV images from the car park video, from about 9:15 pm Nov. 1, were published some months ago and were relatively high-resolution images, I suddenly realized that the low-resolution image of the pretend Amanda (a woman walking into the car park structure) had been intentionally detuned (made fuzzy by decreasing the resolution - dpi). With that, I realized that the guilter position, and indeed the prosecution position, could be most simply described as a hoax. Compare for example, Stefanoni and the (foot?)prints positive for luminol but negative for TMB and thus not blood - but she only mentioned this when forced to disclose. No doubt many people had reached the conclusion that the prosecution case was not some kind of incompetence but was a total fraud long before I had.

3. Rudy certainly needs a defender on ISF. The allegations, not proven BARD, repeated here by some posters that he had burgled Ms. Diaz's flat and perhaps inadvertently set it on fire may be untrue and harmful to his reputation. Rudy perhaps would like to be remembered as the person who got a reduced sentence because he actually was sorry that he hadn't done anything to save Meredith Kercher's life because....he feared he'd be blamed for her murder, or because he couldn't find a phone, or something.

 

[Ken Dine]

Here's what IIP says about bleach receipts:
...

[ ]

Here's what the PG Wiki says:

In early reports, there was a claim that bleach receipts had been located at Raffaele's apartment. This is not true. During the search of his apartment, the police did photograph and collect a series of receipts, but none of them were for bleach. The police also collected two bottles of bleach, which according to Raffaele's maid should not have been there. The reporting, that the receipts for the purchase of bleach were recovered, was incorrect.

I wonder if this is the maid that was instructed not to use the non-existence bleach.

Which maid? Prior to the murder Raffaele had two maids, and both maids also worked for that whackjob and store owner, Quintavalle.

The first maid testified that the two bottles of bleach were purchased several months before the murder, but she got knocked up, so eventually the 2nd female clerk at Quintavalle's store took over cleaning Raffaele's apartment.

Obviously, both of Quintavalle's female employees knew Raffaele rather well, so when police Inspector Volturno came around after the murder to ask Quintavalle and his two employees whether they had seen Raffaele or Amanda in the store recently buying cleaning supplies, all three said NO!

Nearly a year later a cub-reporter got Quintavalle to change his story, but Quintavalle's two female employees remained firm in their convictions that neither Raffaele or Amanda were in the store buying cleaning supplies, and since both women cleaned Raffaele's apartment, both women knew that there was already some bleach there purchased the previous summer.

That the bleach story ever had any traction at all is easily explained:

"A LIE can travel around the world before TRUTH can put its pants on!"

 

[Dan O.]

I don't get it. True there is no reason not to drill down, what I'm scratching my head for is the reason to do it - it seems (YMMV) that the intent is to embarrass those who - weirdly - got it right!!!!

I think Grinder is just trying to play devil's advocat. What he is doing though is attacking old positions which were not incorrect at the time due to the limited availability of information or inconsequential mistakes. Those arguments won't do us any good because we had already accepted the position Grinder is pushing and the author of the position he is attacking is not likely to see his posts here.

 

[Ken Dine]

Hey, I just purchased 6 bottles of bleach. Does that mean I'm cleaning up after a murder?

No!

If you bought one bottle, then that's OK. If you instead bought 3 (or more) bottles, then that's also OK.

HOWEVER, if you had bought TWO bottles of bleach, then obviously you're up to no good!

Seriously, I always have a bottle of bleach around (but never two, of course), and for as long as I live, whenever I buy bleach I'll think about this case.

As for the CLEANUP:

There was indeed a cleanup at the cottage, but Meredith helped do it.

According to the testimony of the two older Italian roomies, the older gals felt both younger English-speaking roomies were slobs, so the older Italian gals instituted a cleaning schedule that would have fines should the two younger gals lapse.

Clearly, BEFORE the murder the cottage had been scrubbed down and was fairly clean, which explains the lack of prints found after the murder.

Even Nencini felt it would have been impossible to clean Meredith's bedroom after the murder, and since Guede's bloody tracks were found in the hallway, the hallway obviously hadn't been cleaned with bleach after the murder.

A bathroom would be easy to clean in 30 minutes, but it obviously hadn't been cleaned - INDEED, Amanda led the Postal Police directly to the bloody blue bathmat.

If Amanda and Raffaele had cleaned the cottage AFTER the murder, then why didn't they dispose of the blue bathmat since they had plenty of time to do that, and it would have been easy to do?

Only a brain-dead 'Guilter' could look at this case and find any evidence of guilt against Amanda or Raffaele.

 

[Ken Dine]

Oh! Oh! I'm up to 11 posts already - just a few more and I can post URLs with the big kids. I hope this post counts as one of the 15?

My apologies for this nonsensical posting to jack up my numbers, but what's the purpose of that silly 15 post rule anyway?

 

[zotz]

bleach receipt according to Barbie

Here is a relevant quote from Barbie's book.

"Several days later, when Raffaele was arrested, police searched his apartment and found a receipt for Ace brand bleach, purchased the morning of November 4, 2007, at 8:15. That bleach was probably used to clean his shoes and maybe even the knife." Ch. 3

Wow! We even know the time of day the bleach was bought. Case closed!
I agree with Grinder in that in order to know the truth we must study the lies and where they came from.

 

[acbytesla]

No!

If you bought one bottle, then that's OK. If you instead bought 3 (or more) bottles, then that's also OK.

HOWEVER, if you had bought TWO bottles of bleach, then obviously you're up to no good!

Seriously, I always have a bottle of bleach around (but never two, of course), and for as long as I live, whenever I buy bleach I'll think about this case.

As for the CLEANUP:

There was indeed a cleanup at the cottage, but Meredith helped do it.

According to the testimony of the two older Italian roomies, the older gals felt both younger English-speaking roomies were slobs, so the older Italian gals instituted a cleaning schedule that would have fines should the two younger gals lapse.

Clearly, BEFORE the murder the cottage had been scrubbed down and was fairly clean, which explains the lack of prints found after the murder.

Even Nencini felt it would have been impossible to clean Meredith's bedroom after the murder, and since Guede's bloody tracks were found in the hallway, the hallway obviously hadn't been cleaned with bleach after the murder.

A bathroom would be easy to clean in 30 minutes, but it obviously hadn't been cleaned - INDEED, Amanda led the Postal Police directly to the bloody blue bathmat.

If Amanda and Raffaele had cleaned the cottage AFTER the murder, then why didn't they dispose of the blue bathmat since they had plenty of time to do that, and it would have been easy to do?

Only a brain-dead 'Guilter' could look at this case and find any evidence of guilt against Amanda or Raffaele.

Can't argue with any of this. Although the reason they didn't find more fingerprints might just be that they didn't find more prints. Most surfaces really aren't that conducive for leaving a good print.

 

[MichaelB]

Grinder there's so little known about Guede. He would have known dozens if not hundreds of people yet virtually none came forward and spoke publically.

The summaries in the Micheli report offer very little. You see stuff like this:

[55] According to the reconstruction by MANCINI, who described his friend’s characters as a bit “rebellious”, on attaining his age of majority RUDY went to live with an aunt in Lecco, so he had moved to Pavia where he had also found some small jobs, having also the occasion to train with the local basketball team. Losing contact with Mr GUEDE for a year, the witness had tracked him down by chance through an Internet search out of curiosity, from which had emerged the existence of a blog bearing his friend’s name: so he had been able to contact him, making him give him a new mobile phone number and learning that – at least according to the account that RUDY was giving him – that he was continuing to work between Pavia and Milan, and that he had also become engaged to VERONICA, an architecture student from Potenza. Between the end of 2006 and the start of 2007, as well, RUDY called Mr MANCINI at home one night, saying he was desperate of having lost his job and insisting that Mrs TIBERI recount the story of his problems and abandonment to VERONICA.

and this...

[178] Reappearing telephonically at the end of 2006, he had made it known that he was to be found between Pavia and Milan, and also of having found work and a girlfriend; after that initial enthusiasm, though, already by January 2007, he had let it be known that he was no longer working, and that his girlfriend had difficulty with letting him live with her.

It's all according to what Guede the pathological liar told them. There's no direct evidence like: "I use to visit Guede at this location 4 times a week and confirm he was working there between 8am and 4pm". There is one guy who was on the basketball team with him and said he often saw him drunk.

Who was the girlfriend, Veronica? Was she identified and interviewed? Does she even exist? In the US she would have been interviewed for hours with the detectives wanting to find out every little bit of information they could about him.

We don't even know if they interviewed the aunt in Lecco or the person he was suppose to be working for or anyone who met him over the course of a whole year. It's not even know what he got up to there in his spare time. It was said he went to nightclubs but who with? What were their names?

The only interesting thing from a witness in the Micheli report is this imo:

[58] Some days afterwards he had effectively re-appeared, even participating in a baptismal reception for Mr MANCINI’s niece, but he had manifested confusion and restlessness, such that the witness had advised him to go and see a friar at the Monteripido monastery whom he knew was able to give psychological help.

He was showing signs of mental illness as soon as he returned to Perugia and advised to get help. I wonder if he'd committed another violent crime and he was escaping that? It sounds like something was wrong with him.

Regarding this "I see no reason not to drill down on both the guilt and innocent narratives."

Who cares? You're wanting to drill down things from people offering opinion in the US who had absolutely nothing to do with the case, the murder of Meredith Kercher investigation, the trials or the defense teams in Italy. All that matters is what's in the documents, the facts established at the trials and what the witnesses said etc.

If Steve Moore had of been hired by the defense attorneys to investigate the case on the ground in Italy and found another rape victim of Guede's and went public with that....Well that would need to be 100% legitimate and accurate. Or if he found a whistleblower from the lab in Rome who revealed there was fraud in the lab regarding the DNA....that'd be huge. But he didn't.

He is just a guy who went on TV in the US and gave his opinion for 3-4 mins each time and wrote a chapter in a book about the case.

So it's getting a bit boring to keep banging on about the guy when no one here even thinks Guede was an informant nor did Moore bring anything unique or important to the public domain about the murder of Meredith, the evidence or the investigation....such as finding another victim of Guede's or crime he committed or a whistleblower etc.

 

[Ken Dine]

Can't argue with any of this. Although the reason they didn't find more fingerprints might just be that they didn't find more prints. Most surfaces really aren't that conducive for leaving a good print.

Another reason may be that the clearly bumbling Italians botched the CSI job (normally a crime scene is processed in less than 4 days, tops), and there are multiple instances where the police buried any exonerating evidence, or even blatantly LIED (Stefanoni belongs in jail!)

Nevertheless, the absence of expected prints is clear evidence of GUILT (according to 'Guilters'), and you can't argue against that reasoning unless you're overly prone to logic!

 

[MichaelB]

Stefano Bonassi witness statement 2-Nov-2007: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Stefano-Bonassi-Statement-2-Nov-2007.pdf

page 3

I would also like to point out that the house we occupy presents notable security problems, both because of its location in a poorly lit place, well known to be frequented by drug addicts, as we happened to observe, judging by the presence of numerous syringes for instance; and because the door of the upstairs apartment occupied by the girls had been broken for a long time and the owners had also been notified. Moreover, Meredith's room especially is easily accessible through the balcony, and because there is the window grate of the downstairs apartment below, by which a wrongdoer could easily gain access to it.