Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[analemma]

Sorry for typo - 2015 it had been correctly noted elsewhere here.

Oh
Sorry:
I am so used to Vixen factoids that I reacted without thinking.
Could you give me a link again
Thanks

 

[analemma]

Since that's the case I'm pleased.

It might be true that Moore did not discover anything original about the case, but I thought that Moore was an influential advocate for disseminating the already existing strong signs that the conduct of the Italian Police and nutcase prosecutor strongly suggested a prejudiced prosecution, a witch hunt, a frame up, or perhaps all three.

 

[Numbers]

If one takes a sentence from a quote such as the Barbie story it pops right up when using Google probably Bing as well.

This is the URL http://www.newsweek.com/italy-new-suspect-sex-murder-96453

11/18/2007 - this is the earliest my search found but I believe Dan O. had something from 11/16.

Thanks for providing the cite.

However, as has been noted, this is not a report on the November post-arrest police press conference, and it is dated Nov. 18.

I see one sentence {bolded emphasis added} in Barbie's article that I suspect is true.

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. Meanwhile, though Guede's testimony could be crucial to the investigation, it will do little to ease the shock of the killing in the once-sleepy medieval town of Perugia. Nor is the news that the wanted man is a foreigner likely to ease Italy's growing resentment toward immigrants. ....

 

[acbytesla]

The hilitied part is fundamentally why I like the guy!. My toes ache because of his nitpicking, but it is, in the main, a good thing. The strange thing is that as much as I respect Moore's opinions, I am not convinced by the Rudy-conspiracy. However, that may be a criticism of me - that I simply do not have the background to see what Moore sees.

Still, I don't see it. And on the other thing, why, then, in post-exoneration 2015 the agenda to embarrass early-FOA's who got it right (in the main!)?

I couldn't agree more about Grinder and Moore or Rudy. I too get irritated with Grinder's nitpicking but he has forced me to reevaluate my position on certain issues. I on the other hand can't seem to make him budge on anything. Not sure if the reason for that is me or him. Oh well.

 

[Dougm]

It might be true that Moore did not discover anything original about the case, but I thought that Moore was an influential advocate for disseminating the already existing strong signs that the conduct of the Italian Police and nutcase prosecutor strongly suggested a prejudiced prosecution, a witch hunt, a frame up, or perhaps all three.

I can tell you what Steve Moore did for me, when he started writing and doing interviews about the case. Might give some perspective (or not).

I had initially assumed the two were guilty, from headlines, and my assumption that, if two people were charged with killing another in some sort of drug fueled sex game, the prosecution at the very least had solid evidence that these two participate in such sex games, and were present with the victim at location where proposed sex game took place. After reading more about the case, I quickly came to the conclusion the case was weak, and they should not have been convicted. I still, however, found some things to be a mystery, and could not rule out their involvement 100%. It was Moore's clear and emphatic explanation of some things I did not know, but which made perfect sense, that moved me from "reasonable doubt" to "sure they are innocent".

The things he said that convinced me were not about Amanda's character, or how young women don't do that kind of thing. I already had found her to be an unlikely killer, but stranger things have happened.

It was more of these:

* The evidence proves there was no clean up. Luminol would show signs of a clean up, and there are none.
* The combination of the small space with the messy, bloody nature of the stabbing of Meredith made it impossible for Amanda and Raff to have participated without leaving some trace of themselves in the room. How could they do it without leaving any trace, or getting blood on themselves, on their clothes? (this, combined with the highly suspect collection and testing of the bra clasp, was a very strong argument)
* People who stab other people with knives very frequently cut themselves, and the prosecution's theory of a violent fight between Meredith and the three accused perps does not fit the evidence. Why does Rudy have cuts on his hand (expected when someone is attacking another with a knife), yet Amanda and Raff have no injuries, no blood, not even a scratch (the guilters desperately tried to make Amanda's small neck hickey be a leftover from the life and death struggle, but ... no).
* It is impossible to clean up your own DNA and leave that of another person (I knew this already).

Moore said, yes, sometimes cases are a mystery, but this one is not a mystery. The evidence not only does not convict Amanda and Raffaele, but it actually proves them innocent. I found that argument very compelling, and consistent with the facts presented in court.

While I think presenting and giving credibility to those ideas was important, do I think that means he never misspeaks or makes a mistake on some details. Of course not. But he still made some very important contributions to explaining to lay people why the case did not add up, and why he was advocating so strongly on Amanda and Raffaele's behalf.

 

[Kauffer]

I can tell you what Steve Moore did for me, when he started writing and doing interviews about the case. Might give some perspective (or not).

I had initially assumed the two were guilty, from headlines, and my assumption that, if two people were charged with killing another in some sort of drug fueled sex game, the prosecution at the very least had solid evidence that these two participate in such sex games, and were present with the victim at location where proposed sex game took place. After reading more about the case, I quickly came to the conclusion the case was weak, and they should not have been convicted. I still, however, found some things to be a mystery, and could not rule out their involvement 100%. It was Moore's clear and emphatic explanation of some things I did not know, but which made perfect sense, that moved me from "reasonable doubt" to "sure they are innocent".

The things he said that convinced me were not about Amanda's character, or how young women don't do that kind of thing. I already had found her to be an unlikely killer, but stranger things have happened.

It was more of these:

* The evidence proves there was no clean up. Luminol would show signs of a clean up, and there are none.
* The combination of the small space with the messy, bloody nature of the stabbing of Meredith made it impossible for Amanda and Raff to have participated without leaving some trace of themselves in the room. How could they do it without leaving any trace, or getting blood on themselves, on their clothes? (this, combined with the highly suspect collection and testing of the bra clasp, was a very strong argument)
* People who stab other people with knives very frequently cut themselves, and the prosecution's theory of a violent fight between Meredith and the three accused perps does not fit the evidence. Why does Rudy have cuts on his hand (expected when someone is attacking another with a knife), yet Amanda and Raff have no injuries, no blood, not even a scratch (the guilters desperately tried to make Amanda's small neck hickey be a leftover from the life and death struggle, but ... no).
* It is impossible to clean up your own DNA and leave that of another person (I knew this already).

Moore said, yes, sometimes cases are a mystery, but this one is not a mystery. The evidence not only does not convict Amanda and Raffaele, but it actually proves them innocent. I found that argument very compelling, and consistent with the facts presented in court.

While I think presenting and giving credibility to those ideas was important, do I think that means he never misspeaks or makes a mistake on some details. Of course not. But he still made some very important contributions to explaining to lay people why the case did not add up, and why he was advocating so strongly on Amanda and Raffaele's behalf.

Steve Moore's story was that he bet his wife he could prove Amanda guilty. So, he set out to do just that. I think he was horrified by what he actually found. Your summary of his thesis is very good. There wasn't much left of the case after these points were highlighted. He's a law enforcement kind of guy and I'm guessing his world view was rocked by this case. He's not a natural advocate for innocence and nor is Judge Heavey. Attitudes are governed by perspectives most of the time. These two showed themselves to be fundamentally honest and prepared to cross the battle lines.

 

[Bill Williams]

I can tell you what Steve Moore did for me, when he started writing and doing interviews about the case. Might give some perspective (or not).

I had initially assumed the two were guilty, from headlines, and my assumption that, if two people were charged with killing another in some sort of drug fueled sex game, the prosecution at the very least had solid evidence that these two participate in such sex games, and were present with the victim at location where proposed sex game took place. After reading more about the case, I quickly came to the conclusion the case was weak, and they should not have been convicted. I still, however, found some things to be a mystery, and could not rule out their involvement 100%. It was Moore's clear and emphatic explanation of some things I did not know, but which made perfect sense, that moved me from "reasonable doubt" to "sure they are innocent".

The things he said that convinced me were not about Amanda's character, or how young women don't do that kind of thing. I already had found her to be an unlikely killer, but stranger things have happened.

It was more of these:

* The evidence proves there was no clean up. Luminol would show signs of a clean up, and there are none.
* The combination of the small space with the messy, bloody nature of the stabbing of Meredith made it impossible for Amanda and Raff to have participated without leaving some trace of themselves in the room. How could they do it without leaving any trace, or getting blood on themselves, on their clothes? (this, combined with the highly suspect collection and testing of the bra clasp, was a very strong argument)
* People who stab other people with knives very frequently cut themselves, and the prosecution's theory of a violent fight between Meredith and the three accused perps does not fit the evidence. Why does Rudy have cuts on his hand (expected when someone is attacking another with a knife), yet Amanda and Raff have no injuries, no blood, not even a scratch (the guilters desperately tried to make Amanda's small neck hickey be a leftover from the life and death struggle, but ... no).
* It is impossible to clean up your own DNA and leave that of another person (I knew this already).

Moore said, yes, sometimes cases are a mystery, but this one is not a mystery. The evidence not only does not convict Amanda and Raffaele, but it actually proves them innocent. I found that argument very compelling, and consistent with the facts presented in court.

While I think presenting and giving credibility to those ideas was important, do I think that means he never misspeaks or makes a mistake on some details. Of course not. But he still made some very important contributions to explaining to lay people why the case did not add up, and why he was advocating so strongly on Amanda and Raffaele's behalf.

Steve Moore's story was that he bet his wife he could prove Amanda guilty. So, he set out to do just that. I think he was horrified by what he actually found. Your summary of his thesis is very good. There wasn't much left of the case after these points were highlighted. He's a law enforcement kind of guy and I'm guessing his world view was rocked by this case. He's not a natural advocate for innocence and nor is Judge Heavey. Attitudes are governed by perspectives most of the time. These two showed themselves to be fundamentally honest and prepared to cross the battle lines.

This.

And this.

 

[Bill Williams]

Hi Bill --

I've been a bit confused by your recent posts. You have been referencing mistakes by "early" FOA. Who and/or what positions are you referring to? I thought this was about Steve Moore and Jim Clemente, neither of whom were involved early on. My impression of the people that were involved as advocates for innocence early in the case pretty much nailed it. If there is any debate, it is about later speculation on various topics about why, how, etc.

Or did I miss something?

I hope Grinder will correct me if I have him wrong.

It is Grinder's position I am referring to. His posts are extremely critical (IMO) of the early FOA - esp. for what he believes are early "talking points" or "memes" which he believes have become canon for all who profess innocence for AK and RS. They are canon regardless (so it is claimed) of the veracity of the point in question.

The strange thing which eludes me is that Grinder is also a solid innocentisti as well. If his posts are critical of early FOA, his posts against guilters are even more laser focussed on the obviousness of innocence, and the agenda associated with those who still (even after exonerations) try to argue guilt.

At one point there seemed to be developing a distinction to explain this duality in innocentisti-land - the difference between those solely/dispassionately interested in justice, against those with a vested-interest in proving the two innocent. It seemed to me at one point, perhaps wrongly, that Grinder was making a distinction between Hellmann's own two positions - one at trial in 2011 where he was an advocate for justice, but since then became an advocate for AK and RS.....

..... therefore even Hellmann needed to be regarded with a more healthy dose of skepticism these days.

I think Grinder's point is (he can correct me if I am wrong) that those who have founf them innocent simply on the basis of justice, don't need as much skepticism applied to them as those with a vested-interest, who it is implied will try to slip a factoid past you.

Why one would even need to do that, esp.since March 2015 is beyond me. Then again, I could have all this wrong.

 

[Dougm]

I hope Grinder will correct me if I have him wrong.

It is Grinder's position I am referring to. His posts are extremely critical (IMO) of the early FOA - esp. for what he believes are early "talking points" or "memes" which he believes have become canon for all who profess innocence for AK and RS. They are canon regardless (so it is claimed) of the veracity of the point in question.

The strange thing which eludes me is that Grinder is also a solid innocentisti as well. If his posts are critical of early FOA, his posts against guilters are even more laser focussed on the obviousness of innocence, and the agenda associated with those who still (even after exonerations) try to argue guilt.

At one point there seemed to be developing a distinction to explain this duality in innocentisti-land - the difference between those solely/dispassionately interested in justice, against those with a vested-interest in proving the two innocent. It seemed to me at one point, perhaps wrongly, that Grinder was making a distinction between Hellmann's own two positions - one at trial in 2011 where he was an advocate for justice, but since then became an advocate for AK and RS.....

..... therefore even Hellmann needed to be regarded with a more healthy dose of skepticism these days.

I think Grinder's point is (he can correct me if I am wrong) that those who have founf them innocent simply on the basis of justice, don't need as much skepticism applied to them as those with a vested-interest, who it is implied will try to slip a factoid past you.

Why one would even need to do that, esp.since March 2015 is beyond me. Then again, I could have all this wrong.

I think I get it. The part that I probably disagree with is indicating that the people on the PI side who push certain memes, some of which are speculative, are not necessarily the people who were PI "early". Some, in fact, probably joined the discussion much later, although I personally don't spend much time keeping track of that kind of thing. I was just questioning the idea that the people Grinder is thinking of are defined by when they joined the debate, or when they became advocates. I think his idea is more about the ideas some are presenting, and those people are not exclusively, or even predominantly, the "early" innocence supporters.

Note: I am not asking about this because I care who is labeled "early" or "later", I am actually neither. Just trying to understand your reference to "early" FOA, and if that is what defines who might be supporting certain concepts.

 

[Grinder]

Oh
Sorry:
I am so used to Vixen factoids that I reacted without thinking.
Could you give me a link again
Thanks

Moore/Clemente - 3-7-2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0LXNpYVmQY

Clemente - 3-6-2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6wiW2iphA4

 

[Numbers]

I think I get it. The part that I probably disagree with is indicating that the people on the PI side who push certain memes, some of which are speculative, are not necessarily the people who were PI "early". Some, in fact, probably joined the discussion much later, although I personally don't spend much time keeping track of that kind of thing. I was just questioning the idea that the people Grinder is thinking of are defined by when they joined the debate, or when they became advocates. I think his idea is more about the ideas some are presenting, and those people are not exclusively, or even predominantly, the "early" innocence supporters.

Note: I am not asking about this because I care who is labeled "early" or "later", I am actually neither. Just trying to understand your reference to "early" FOA, and if that is what defines who might be supporting certain concepts.

This may be a point some posters are ignoring. Many of us understand that certain memes (Guede's past alleged crimes, especially before the break-in at the Perugian lawyers) were not fully established as fact, but were speculations, hypotheses, or opinions. There is a difference between that and the apparent guilter acceptance as true of any and all allegations against Knox or Sollecito.

ETA: Yes, Grinder, IIUC there has been no court conviction of Guede for burglary at the Perugian lawyers' office and possibly not enough available evidence to convict him. I believe it highly plausible that Guede committed the burglary of the lawyers' office.

 

[RWVBWL]

Rudy + The Drugs

Okay two guys After reading Rudi's German stuff and his 2008 statement I in no way believe the loner/outcast/fringie characterization of him. He seem to have lot's of friends and was a social guy.

Hmmmm,
Rudy+friends.

Heck,
it seems that Rudy was busted a few days before Miss Kercher's rape+murder, hangin' out with some of his friends.

Doin' what?

Seems he had some dope, err, make that drugs on his possession, at least from what I've gathered by this Italian newspaper report, which seems to have been written and published, Nov. 21st, '07 while "Poor Rudy" was on the run...

The squad re-read the file of Rudy. Only five days before the discovery of Meredith's body was caught in a nursery in Milan with a knife in the kitchen of the school and took his white laptop. "I was at the station when a South American offered me a bed for 50 euros - had told the police in Milan - I did come here." Had denounced him and let him go and then stop it again two days later with a group of drug dealers and some Africans' drug in his pocket. From the Milan Furniture are now know that long ago had noticed in the most fashionable nightclubs

Weird that it's not an English tabloid reporting this, just an Italian newspaper:
http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb...meredith-preso-il-quarto-uomo-sono-stato.html


Gosh,
it seems like even the Italians were bad mouthin' Poor Rudy,
even before he was brought back to Italy.

Question for ya folks:
Was Rudy Guede drug tested after being arrested in either Germany or upon his return to Italy?

If so, what were the results of his drug testing?


Bein' a dude who grew up around the Venice Beach scene,
well I like to keep an open mind about these things,
+ heck I find it odd that AK and RS had only the slightest trace, not even enough to ID the substance, when they were arrested and drug tested, IIRC from reading in B. Nadeau's book "Angel Face"

What about any drug test results from Poor Rudy Guede?

 

[Grinder]

Rw also fron same article:

While in Rome continue the analysis of the artifacts seized at the home of Raffaele Sollecito and get conflicting reports. The 'examination of the computer on which the student of Giovinazzo says he spent the night of 1 November does not show traces of activity from 21 to 6 in the morning. And according to rumors blood Meredith would have been recognized not only on the sponge found in his house but also on underwear that had lent to Amanda. Other traces of the British

How about just tossing this story as garbage.

 

[RWVBWL]

Ok Grinder,
I will,
IF you can present the drug testing results that Rudy Guede surely must have had done, ok?

 

[RWVBWL]

It kinda cracks me up when you folks discount Rudy Guede
or 1 of his buddies being somewhat of a police informer.

Heck,
I'm more inclined to believe that Koko was a police informer,
due to reading much about this case we discuss and his Courtroom attaire...

I have been a police informer,
"helping" 1 undercover cop on 1 particular case for a few months that they were investigating something here in Santa Monica, California, many years ago right after the Millenium changed.

Yet you would never have known that, right?
Unless I told you so, like a moment ago,
for you can not google and get to know the details.

And I could care less if someone like The Grinder doubts that I did this,
without corroboration! So there.

RW

 

[Grinder]

It kinda cracks me up when you folks discount Rudy Guede
or 1 of his buddies being somewhat of a police informer.

Heck,
I'm more inclined to believe that Koko was a police informer,
due to reading much about this case we discuss and his Courtroom attaire...

I have been a police informer,
"helping" 1 undercover cop on 1 particular case for a few months that they were investigating something here in Santa Monica, California, many years ago right after the Millenium changed.

Yet you would never have known that, right?
Unless I told you so, like a moment ago,
for you can not google and get to know the details.

And I could care less if someone like The Grinder doubts that I did this,
without corroboration! So there.

RW

Hey, if you say so. When Rudi says he was an informer, I'll believe him too.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hey, if you say so. When Rudi says he was an informer, I'll believe him too.

Right.
Aren't you the guy that believes that Rudy was on a date with Meredith,
but forgot to bring over some condoms?
Hahaha...

You do not even believe that Rudy spells his name with a y, not an i,
even though I've shown you that he does so, in his own handwriting.
Pfffft. Thanks for the laugh, again.

 

[Dan O.]

Rw also fron same article:

While in Rome continue the analysis of the artifacts seized at the home of Raffaele Sollecito and get conflicting reports. The 'examination of the computer on which the student of Giovinazzo says he spent the night of 1 November does not show traces of activity from 21 to 6 in the morning. And according to rumors blood Meredith would have been recognized not only on the sponge found in his house but also on underwear that had lent to Amanda. Other traces of the British

How about just tossing this story as garbage.

Though there are inaccuracies in the story, it contains factual references that couldn't just be made up by the author. Where did this information come from if not leaked by the police? And if the police are the ones leaking the information, isn't it reasonable to presume that they are also the source of the inaccuracies?

 

[Numbers]

Though there are inaccuracies in the story, it contains factual references that couldn't just be made up by the author. Where did this information come from if not leaked by the police? And if the police are the ones leaking the information, isn't it reasonable to presume that they are also the source of the inaccuracies?

One more step in this chain of logic: If the police were the source of the media stories including the inaccuracies, why were the police providing the inaccuracies when they had the correct information from testing?

Possible answers include but may not be limited to:

1. To destroy the presumption of innocence for the accused, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, and thereby influencing the the outcome of the trial.

2. To go beyond the possible conviction of the accused, by destroying the reputations of the accused.

 

[RWVBWL]

About a Crime Scope...

Greetings,
Recently I read that the boyz downstairs would sometimes take a piss on Riccardo's bedroom floor.
Funny guys, them boyz, kinda reminds me of more than a few knuckleheads that I know of, hahaha...

Riccardo's bedroom was locked and was the only 1, as far as I can tell,
that was broken into, by either Italian law enforcement or Rudy Guede,
his friends, or some unknowns.

Heck,
doesn't "Poor Rudy" mention hearin' noise downstairs,
the night he was on his date with Meredith,
Grinder?

These pix have perplexed me,
they are screen grabs from Riccardo's bedroom
from the Crime Scene video shot on Nov. 3rd, '07.

+

Nov. 3rd is the next day after Meredith was discovered raped+murdered.
For some reason we do not get to see this bedroom on Nov. 2nd,
even though there was, as far as I know, not any dead bodies downstairs.

I high-lighted the outlines,
as good as I could, in red,
to better define them.

I had thought that these outlines were from blood.

Are they instead outlines drawn by the cops in crayon,
like the ones seens circled around the blood drops on the stairway video?
Done so to highlight piss, which was probably unknown at the time to be from Riccarardo's flatmates?

If so,
how did the cops realize it was piss?

Did they use a purple crime scope light like this:
http://www.spexforensics.com/applications/crimescope

Would this piss have even shown up?

If so,
did they use a purple crime scope light upstairs too in Meredith's bedroom?

Is this why Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni is asking her lab assistant Alessa to test the seminal fluid,
err, probable seminal fluid, on Nov. 3rd, 2007?

Just wondering...
RW