Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dan O.]

Amanda had a window in her bedroom, and when she returned to the cottage on Nov 2nd it was daytime. The girls used those lamps as study lights, but their bedrooms also had ceiling lights, so if Amanda did need more light she would have likely just flicked her bedroom's wall switch.

As for failing to notice that her study lamp was missing, Amanda had a lot going on that day distracting her. I do recall Amanda saying that she had left her rent money in a drawer in her bedroom, and that with all the confusion going on that day, that she never did check to see if her rent money was still there.



Have you ever looked thru Meredith's keyhole before?

Do you have a citation which proves that Amanda was forced ("squeezed") to admit the lamp was hers?



I've never claimed to have your uncanny ability to divine TRVTH out of thin air, so ya got me there.

Three people claim to have looked through Meredith's keyhole. They all give the same report. They could see Meredith's purse on her bed and nothing more.


Vixen made the same claim about the lamp before:

Very reluctantly, and only because she couldn't deny it.

GM: Okay. Okay. Listen, another question. The lamp that was found in Meredith's room, a black lamp with a red button, that was found in Meredith's room, at the foot of the bed. Was it yours?

AK: I did have a lamp with a red button in my room, yes.

GM: So the lamp was yours.

AK: I suppose it was.

GM: Was it missing from your room?

AK: You know, I didn't look.

GM: Did Meredith have a lamp like that in her room?

AK: I don't know.
​

So we see again Vixen is making crap up or repeating discredited crap from the guilter site. This isn't looking good for Vixen's credibility. In the end she will probably be glad she is posting anonymously and this episode won't follow her. (or will it?)

We're going through the same gish gallop that we went through last month.

 

[Dan O.]

Amanda had a window in her bedroom, and when she returned to the cottage on Nov 2nd it was daytime. The girls used those lamps as study lights, but their bedrooms also had ceiling lights, so if Amanda did need more light she would have likely just flicked her bedroom's wall switch.

No. The wall light in Amanda's room was broken.

FM: In your room in via della Pergola, was there a central light?

AK: There was one but it didn't work, so I used the little bedside lamp.

...

FM: But the first time, when you took your shower and then you returned to your
room, first you undressed and then you dressed, all this, you did it without
any light?

AK: It was the middle of the morning, there was already light.
​

 

[Grinder]

Well the ten hours I missed were as exciting as a debate over the word "peruse" which I didn't do unless the new meaning is employed which just means, well, nothing.

Now MichaelB's post about the testing of Rudi's stuff is quite interesting.

The item in Batch 3 that attracted the most intense scrutiny was Kercher’s bloodied bra (Rep. 59). It is clear that the lab had determined from the outset that it would attempt to isolate male “touch” DNA on the bra (presumably, Sollecito’s DNA). On November 23, seven samples (a relatively large number for a single item) were extracted from the bloody garment. Each of these samples was analyzed utilizing a non-blood (i.e., “saliva”) protocol, even though (i) the photos of the bra depict copious blood, (ii) the lab report (in contravention of the SAL records) claims that the samples were TMB-positive, and (iii) Stefanoni in her court testimony and powerpoint presentation described the saliva-protocol-tested samples as “blood”.

The initial round of bra sample profiling appears not to have been useful for the prosecution. Of the seven samples, five revealed Kercher’s profile only. In addition, Stefanoni’s powerpoint presentation indicates that Y-DNA testing was performed on these samples but yielded no results (curiously, these YDNA tests are not otherwise disclosed in the lab records). The results of the remaining two of the initial seven samples, i.e., 59b1 and 59a2 have been suppressed.

I don't know how it is clear that they were going for touch DNA or what significance using a saliva test has. Perhaps one of the DNA knowledgeable here could check it out.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/guede-dna-investigation/

It will be interesting to see a timeline of how everything was tested.

When did the defense become aware of these details?

 

[Bill Williams]

Really? Then why did Amanda claim in her round robin email home that she managed to creep along Mez' windowledge?

She didn't. Why haven't you looked at the documentation for yourself?

The motivations report cannot come soon enough. The invented-out-of-thin-air factoids just keep coming Yes, this is like the "gish gallop" of a month ago on this thread.

You have to hand it to the pro-guilt lobby, Amanda surely must be guilty on their "all-the-other-evidence" version of the facts. But like the above-claim that Amanda claimed to have creeped along "Mez's windowledge", or that the lamp could be seen through the keyhole, etc, etc, etc,....

There really could not be a more bare display of the bias that exists without any factual underlay.

 

[Kauffer]

You might be. I was referring to behaviour that could be perceived by some to be abnormal.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up - so not Amanda buying underwear since it's not evidence of her being in a state of euphoria, nor, tangentially, is a state of euphoria evidence of participation in a murder.

 

[Numbers]

The swirls or similar patterns on blood cleanup are from the motions of the sponge, mop, towel, or similar object used to contact the blood and to apply the liquid cleaner (which may be bleach). These cleanup items (sponge, mop, towel, or similar object) must also be disposed of if the cleanup is intended to hide evidence of a crime.

So in other words it is Numbers' Theory (or, to please our American cousins across the pond, Numbers's Theory).

You are presupposing that in any clean up scene, sodium hypochlorite will be used, the perp will go on his or her hands and knees and scrub the stain with a "swirling" action.

Ever thought of submitting your thesis for peer review?

Your response is full of misstatements and false inferences of the information in my post. Your post does not recognize that I have used the word "may" which means in this context the possibility of using sodium hypochlorite-water solution. I have indicated the possibility that a cleanup could include a mop.

The swirling pattern is the artifact of the motion of the cleaning object (which may be a sponge, cloth, towel, mop, etc.) over the stain. The position ofthe cleaner depends on the cleaning object; if a mop, obviously the person will be standing. In the US, mops generally have sponges or, historically, cloth, cleaning objects at the contact. The stain is hydrated by whatever cleaning fluid is used (one could try simply water) and largely picked-up by the cleaning object. Residual hemoglobin, not visible to the unaided eye, is left on the surface that has been cleaned. The "swirls" (and typically smearing or enlarging the area producing luminol chemiluminescence) are the result of the motion of the cleaning object over the stain.

I suggest anyone interested in this topic and uncertain of the truth read some forensic textbooks which often have some discussion of this well-known area. Note that the citation reference I supplied was published in 1973. This information is not new. What is significant is not the misapprehensions of posters on ISF or other fora, but the apparent lack of knowledge or intentional ignorance of the Italian authorities on this matter.

 

[Numbers]

No. We know that, because it did not follow normal legal procedures. It quoted Section 530 para 2, when the *only* other time was with the Andreotti trial, with its concommitant mafia associations.

No self-respecting Supreme Court or High Court judge in England & Wales would dream of pulling such a stunt. They would remit it back, as it is not their jurisdiction to decide on the merits.

Why would one conclude that following Italian procedural law - by a court quoting CPP Art. 530 para. 2 (which I presume is what your post means) is not a normal legal procedure in Italy?

There is a misunderstanding of what the legal authority of the Italian CSC is. They are indeed legally authorized, by CPP Article 606, para. 1e, to judge an appeal which claims of a lower court ruling that "the grounds of the judgment are lacking, contradictory, or manifestly illogical".

 

[Bill Williams]

Post-murder witnesses and her diary entries ("I could write a song about this"; "I could kill for a pizza") testified Amanda was "off her head". Pulling faces at Raff, laughing, giggling, prancing about doing cartwheels and splits.

Behaviour is legally permissible evidence.

It is one thing to admit this kind of evidence to buttress forensics and the like.

It is quite another when this is the WHOLE case.

Remember the brag: "We solved this on behavioural clues even before the forensics came in"?? Well, behind that statement lies the problem back in 2007 in Perugia in how this became, quickly, a wrongful prosecution.

When the forensics came it, they showed a fairly simple crime. Rudy Guede did it. Proof that there were no forensics against Raffaele, for instance, is that they had to go back 46 days later to invent something against him!!!!

And, of course, there is a lingering subset of the pro-guilt lobby which does not care at all about how Meredith died, or who did this horrid thing - they just want to say bad things about Amanda at all costs, as well as anyone who dares say there is no evidence against her.

Except for the three things that early detective used to solve the crime on behaviour - pizza eating, hoopla-saying, and not crying at the right times.

There you have it. We actually DO have the behaviours cited.

 

[Numbers]

Well the ten hours I missed were as exciting as a debate over the word "peruse" which I didn't do unless the new meaning is employed which just means, well, nothing.

Now MichaelB's post about the testing of Rudi's stuff is quite interesting.

The item in Batch 3 that attracted the most intense scrutiny was Kercher’s bloodied bra (Rep. 59). It is clear that the lab had determined from the outset that it would attempt to isolate male “touch” DNA on the bra (presumably, Sollecito’s DNA). On November 23, seven samples (a relatively large number for a single item) were extracted from the bloody garment. Each of these samples was analyzed utilizing a non-blood (i.e., “saliva”) protocol, even though (i) the photos of the bra depict copious blood, (ii) the lab report (in contravention of the SAL records) claims that the samples were TMB-positive, and (iii) Stefanoni in her court testimony and powerpoint presentation described the saliva-protocol-tested samples as “blood”.

The initial round of bra sample profiling appears not to have been useful for the prosecution. Of the seven samples, five revealed Kercher’s profile only. In addition, Stefanoni’s powerpoint presentation indicates that Y-DNA testing was performed on these samples but yielded no results (curiously, these YDNA tests are not otherwise disclosed in the lab records). The results of the remaining two of the initial seven samples, i.e., 59b1 and 59a2 have been suppressed.

I don't know how it is clear that they were going for touch DNA or what significance using a saliva test has. Perhaps one of the DNA knowledgeable here could check it out.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/guede-dna-investigation/

It will be interesting to see a timeline of how everything was tested.

When did the defense become aware of these details?

Grinder,
Thanks for bringing the discussion back to real issues.

The information on

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/guede-dna-investigation/

suggests that on or about Nov. 6, 2007, the police had the DNA profile of the rapist-murderer, Rudy Guede, although they may not have had his name associated with the profile. Within a few days, however, they would know that the DNA profile did not match either Raffaele Sollecito or Patrick Lumumba. Therefore, the arrest and continued detention of RS and PL, and thus Amanda Knox, was arbitrary and a violation of Convention Article 5.

 

[acbytesla]

Post-murder witnesses and her diary entries ("I could write a song about this"; "I could kill for a pizza") testified Amanda was "off her head". Pulling faces at Raff, laughing, giggling, prancing about doing cartwheels and splits.

Behaviour is legally permissible evidence.

Sure it is. But what does it mean? Like war, what's it good for? Absolutely Nothin! Say it again. What's it good for? Absolutely Nothin!

You pretend that you can read minds. I know I can't. I also don't believe those things really happened.

 

[Vixen]

Amanda had a window in her bedroom, and when she returned to the cottage on Nov 2nd it was daytime. The girls used those lamps as study lights, but their bedrooms also had ceiling lights, so if Amanda did need more light she would have likely just flicked her bedroom's wall switch.

As for failing to notice that her study lamp was missing, Amanda had a lot going on that day distracting her. I do recall Amanda saying that she had left her rent money in a drawer in her bedroom, and that with all the confusion going on that day, that she never did check to see if her rent money was still there.



Have you ever looked thru Meredith's keyhole before?

Do you have a citation which proves that Amanda was forced ("squeezed") to admit the lamp was hers?

I've never claimed to have your uncanny ability to divine TRVTH out of thin air, so ya got me there.

Somebody already did.

I am not sure why you are second guessing what Amanda thought. Law doesn't work like that. We look at what she did, which, having reported a burglary and informed cops "nothing is stolen", omitted to report a significant missing item in her room.

 

[Vixen]

Why would one conclude that following Italian procedural law - by a court quoting CPP Art. 530 para. 2 (which I presume is what your post means) is not a normal legal procedure in Italy?

There is a misunderstanding of what the legal authority of the Italian CSC is. They are indeed legally authorized, by CPP Article 606, para. 1e, to judge an appeal which claims of a lower court ruling that "the grounds of the judgment are lacking, contradictory, or manifestly illogical".

Ah, but they did not quote CPP Art 606 para 1e, they quoted Art 530 para II.

 

[Vixen]

Your response is full of misstatements and false inferences of the information in my post. Your post does not recognize that I have used the word "may" which means in this context the possibility of using sodium hypochlorite-water solution. I have indicated the possibility that a cleanup could include a mop.

The swirling pattern is the artifact of the motion of the cleaning object (which may be a sponge, cloth, towel, mop, etc.) over the stain. The position ofthe cleaner depends on the cleaning object; if a mop, obviously the person will be standing. In the US, mops generally have sponges or, historically, cloth, cleaning objects at the contact. The stain is hydrated by whatever cleaning fluid is used (one could try simply water) and largely picked-up by the cleaning object. Residual hemoglobin, not visible to the unaided eye, is left on the surface that has been cleaned. The "swirls" (and typically smearing or enlarging the area producing luminol chemiluminescence) are the result of the motion of the cleaning object over the stain.

I suggest anyone interested in this topic and uncertain of the truth read some forensic textbooks which often have some discussion of this well-known area. Note that the citation reference I supplied was published in 1973. This information is not new. What is significant is not the misapprehensions of posters on ISF or other fora, but the apparent lack of knowledge or intentional ignorance of the Italian authorities on this matter.

The "swirl" is not a chemical reaction. It would be due in some hypothetical cases to a circular scrubbing motion to applied sodium hypochlrite. To postulate that would be the case here, had there been cleaning, is pure conjecture.

Presumably the floor had been cleaned at some point in the previous six weeks, so it is remarkable the swirling pattern was not picked up by the luminol, which according to your hypothesis (and that's all it is) should have shown up.

Some just move a mop back and forth = no swirls.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Can't believe it's still going on here.

I see the general consensus amidst the pitchforks and torches folk is that a secret conspiracy of masons and Satanists bought off the most supreme court of Italy to let the witch loose.

it's only logical that at some precise point the masons were mopping the floor in a satanic way, leaving no swirls and no smears.

 

[acbytesla]

Somebody already did.

I am not sure why you are second guessing what Amanda thought. Law doesn't work like that. We look at what she did, which, having reported a burglary and informed cops "nothing is stolen", omitted to report a significant missing item in her room.

What the hell are you talking about? Your posts epitomizes the whole problem with the guilter position. You are reading tea leaves and pretending that you understand the significance. They were under the impression nothing was stolen. You act as if you KNOW that they absolutely should have known one way or the other.

That somehow this unimportant error is incriminating. Which can ONLY be ascertained through speculation. It's illogical. Can't you see that?

 

[MDDVS]

What the hell are you talking about? Your posts epitomizes the whole problem with the guilter position. You are reading tea leaves and pretending that you understand the significance. They were under the impression nothing was stolen. You act as if you KNOW that they absolutely should have known one way or the other.

That somehow this unimportant error is incriminating. Which can ONLY be ascertained through speculation. It's illogical. Can't you see that?

Not only that, but what purpose would saying "nothing was stolen" have for a guilty Amanda?

 

[Grinder]

Although the bleach discussion is worthless and the bleach receipts even more so, I will play for a minute.

If they cleaned the cottage with bleach or any cleaner why wasn't it noted when the PP arrived? According to bleach advocates she bought it or stole after 8 in the morning, so it would have been used until at least 9.

No smell in the cottage 4 hours after use yet a strong smell at Raf's maybe days or certainly more than 4 hours later. Hmmmm.

The kind of bleach is important because the kind Raf had leaves a residue. It also doesn't clean blood completely.

Chlorine bleaches can remove a Bloodstain to the naked eye but fortunately, forensics experts can use the application of substances such as luminol or phenolphthalein to show that haemoglobin is present. In fact, even if the shady criminal washed a bloodstained item of clothing 10 times, these chemicals could still reveal blood.

Perhaps Dan O. would provide the luminol foot print map with Rudi's bloody shoe prints as well. IIRC they are in similar places. Does that mean they cleaned around the shoe prints?

If Raf had bleach hidden from the maid why would they need to buy new bleach?

I would also be interested in where they disposed of their bloody clothes, bleachy rags/sponges/mops and shoes. I would also like to know when they were able to do it.

Also it seems much more likely that Amanda and Raf would leave a lot of evidence in the murder room especially since blood was pouring from her neck and ear as well as his chin than Rudi would leave in Filomena's room as he would be wearing gloves and there was no struggle.

A point neither of the vested sides wishes to entertain is that if the prosecution can believe that the kids were part of the murder and left nothing in the room (except the alleged bra clasp mixed DNA), why is it ruled out Rudi could have had another accomplice?

 

[Grinder]

Not only that, but what purpose would saying "nothing was stolen" have for a guilty Amanda?

It was Raf that said that and the speculation is he panicked.

The idea that she would have noticed a missing lamp is precious.

 

[Ken Dine]

No. The wall light in Amanda's room was broken.

FM: In your room in via della Pergola, was there a central light?

AK: There was one but it didn't work, so I used the little bedside lamp.

...

FM: But the first time, when you took your shower and then you returned to your
room, first you undressed and then you dressed, all this, you did it without
any light?

AK: It was the middle of the morning, there was already light.
​

Thanks for the correction about Amanda's broken ceiling light, but I was half right since it was daylight and she didn't need to use her reading lamp to dress.

 

[acbytesla]

Can't believe it's still going on here.

I see the general consensus amidst the pitchforks and torches folk is that a secret conspiracy of masons and Satanists bought off the most supreme court of Italy to let the witch loose.

it's only logical that at some precise point the masons were mopping the floor in a satanic way, leaving no swirls and no smears.

Well, they teach you that second year at Hogworts in Spells 201. This is the significance of the Harry Potter books. Amanda and Raffaele were using them as reference material. The combination of cotton panties, Ace Bleach and a wand from Ollivander's will do the trick. They also teach this at the Masonic Temple.