Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Although some of Grinder's ideas on this has led to an interesting discussion of some of the events associated with the case, I agree completely with acbytesla here. Anything that Sollecito did in his early conversations with the police would be suspicious by some usages of the word. If he pointed out items that had been stolen it wold be suspicious that he could name specific items that wee stolen, if he was unnaturally precise in his speech it would be suspicious. However, in the normal sense of the word, suspicious, Sollecito's statement wasn't suspicious because it doesn't provide any significant evidence that he was involved in the murder.

These weren't "early conversations with the police". This was his response to the call operator asking what was stolen.

While certainly not making him guilty it was a remark a reasonable investigator would note as suspicious. When it was determined by the first responders that the burglary was staged the statement seemed even more suspicious.

If you think the post you were responding to had anything to do with my POV please find a place I said that a juror should have used the response to find him guilty. It will be a long search.

And what could Raf have done to be suspicious?

If it turned out the burglary was staged and Raf murdered Meredith would you still say his "nothing was stolen" remark shouldn't have been looked at as suspicious?

ETA - have you looked at all the witness interviews? Not have you read them but just noted how many people were interviewed?

 

[Grinder]

I agree his statement was "suspicious". But only a little. If I was a cop, I would have noted that, thought it was odd, but then, when I put all the other info together, would have discounted it as not meaning much. I think several of Raffaele's other statements and actions were much more suspicious than this one. But people can say and do suspicious things all they want, it doesn't add up to a case if the evidence does not prove they did the crime. People say and do weird stuff all the time, especially in stressful situations.

Sure but the question is were the police reasonably to suspect the kids at all? Did the police frame them from the very beginning as some here have contended? I say no and there were suspicious things that caused the police to think they might have been involved.

 

[acbytesla]

No Tesla we are talking about whether the police would look at it as suspicious.

It was for police to look at that statement as suspicious. Please show me where I said anything about jurors.

This is what you do all the time. You change the point. I have consistently said the police were reasonable to look at his response as suspicious. Done.

I of course DISAGREE. . The police of course look at everything that might be amiss as suspicious. That's their job. The problem of course is concluding that it is suspicious behavior as if this piece of info proves anything. Should it be part of the case for guilt or innocence? That is the real question. To point this piece of info out as part of the reasoning for guilt is the true error.

 

[Grinder]

I of course DISAGREE. . The police of course look at everything that might be amiss as suspicious. That's their job. The problem of course is concluding that it is suspicious behavior as if this piece of info proves anything. Should it be part of the case for guilt or innocence? That is the real question. To point this piece of info out as part of the reasoning for guilt is the true error.

Gee since I never said it was " (a) piece of info out as part of the reasoning for guilt" you are making the true error.

I have said that the response was suspicious and a reason for the police to focus on the kids more than say Filomena. I have never said the statement made them guilty.

Suspicious behavior need not prove anything to be suspicious.

 

[Dan O.]

...

The police reviewed the response and found it suspicious and they were reasonable to be suspicious. I would appear you are among those can only look at the case as if the kids are innocent and the police should have known that from day one.

First of all, is there really anything suspiscious here?

POLICE: Theft [burglary] in the house eh?
RS: No, there’s no theft… they broke a window… there is a mess… there is also a closed door… a mess.
POLICE: Just a moment please.

...

POLICE: What did they take?
RS: They didn’t take anything, the problem is the closed door, there are bloodstains.
​

When did the police find Raffaele's remarks suspiscious? Was it listed in the reasons for his arrest? Is there any contemporaneous documentation that shows the first instance this was being called suspiscious?

 

[Dougm]

Sure but the question is were the police reasonably to suspect the kids at all? Did the police frame them from the very beginning as some here have contended? I say no and there were suspicious things that caused the police to think they might have been involved.

I agree with that. I have always been of the opinion that, however wrongly or incompetently, the police thought the two were guilty.

I think the kids should have been closely looked at, then ruled out because the evidence was not present to prove they were even there at the time of the murder.

The part that looks suspicious to me is how the prosecution embraced witnesses like Toto, Nara, and Mr. Shopkeeper, because they didn't have a case otherwise. How they went back to the cottage to find the bra clasp, after the shoe print evidence collapsed. How they made such a big deal of Amanda's statements about Lumumba, when those statements clearly prove she didn't know what she was talking about (even her coerced story does not fit the evidence). I think they became convinced the kids were guilty based on what they thought was suspicious behavior, and set out to prove it, by hook or by crook.

Is that framing? Or just confirmation bias? At some point, it all becomes a grey muddle. But a lot of people went to great lengths to prop up a case that surely at least some of them knew was weak at best and bogus at worst.

 

[carbonjam72]

I of course DISAGREE. . The police of course look at everything that might be amiss as suspicious. That's their job. The problem of course is concluding that it is suspicious behavior as if this piece of info proves anything. Should it be part of the case for guilt or innocence? That is the real question. To point this piece of info out as part of the reasoning for guilt is the true error.

Any statement can seem suspicious to a paranoid mindset.

I see nothing suspicious in Rafs statement, or behavior of Amanda & Raf.

Mignini and police were looking for culprits, and found them along the path of least resistance.

Nothing the police did in framing these two innocent people is defensible, and much of it was overtly corrupt. Moo

 

[zotz]

I believe it is all disclosed in Filomena's testimony. She asked to enter the cottage after it was declared a crime scene to retrieve her coat and purse from the sopha. She then saw the opportunity and entered her own room to retrieve the laptop. She snuck the laptop out by hiding it under her coat. At the police station the laptop was seen and the police confiscated it there.

That is very suspicious behavior and it was evidence tampering. If Amanda had done something like that it would have been a major piece of circumstantial evidence against her.

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree with that. I have always been of the opinion that, however wrongly or incompetently, the police thought the two were guilty.

I think the kids should have been closely looked at, then ruled out because the evidence was not present to prove they were even there at the time of the murder.
The part that looks suspicious to me is how the prosecution embraced witnesses like Toto, Nara, and Mr. Shopkeeper, because they didn't have a case otherwise. How they went back to the cottage to find the bra clasp, after the shoe print evidence collapsed. How they made such a big deal of Amanda's statements about Lumumba, when those statements clearly prove she didn't know what she was talking about (even her coerced story does not fit the evidence). I think they became convinced the kids were guilty based on what they thought was suspicious behavior, and set out to prove it, by hood or by crook.

Is that framing? Or just confirmation bias? At some point, it all becomes a grey muddle. But a lot of people went to great lengths to prop up a case that surely at least some of them knew was weak at best and bogus at worst.

IIRC Sarah Burns makes this point about the Central Park 5, in her insightful documentary about them. All five confessed to the crime. The confessions were all video-taped, but the interrogations which led up to them were not.

Be that as it may, the hall-mark of them as false confessions is that when assembled, the 5 confessions were contradictory. The confessions also did not match the forensics, which pointed to only one perp.

Yet as one of the 5 said in the documentary, no matter how many times this was pointed out at trial, there he was on video confessing to the thing. The only thing which pointed to his guilt was his own voice, and that seemed to trump everything said at trial about false confessions.

I would like to think in a perfect world with properly trained interrogators, that the narrative Amanda (and to a lesser extend Raffaele) succumbed to that night should have told police they were NOT involved. Regardless of the suspicions which brought them into their separate interrogation rooms.

Raffaele was confused between Wednesday and Thursday night, and shouting at him was not going to resolve that. Amanda had convinced herself that the police really could use her imaginings. She found an able confederate in that project in Anna Donnino, the translator, er interpreter, er mediator, er diplomat, or whatever she was.

I "get" what Grinder is getting at with regard to "suspicions". What I disagree with is that (it seems) that Grinder is looking at this in isolation, and with a mild suspect-centricism.

 

[acbytesla]

Gee since I never said it was " (a) piece of info out as part of the reasoning for guilt" you are making the true error.

I have said that the response was suspicious and a reason for the police to focus on the kids more than say Filomena. I have never said the statement made them guilty.

Suspicious behavior need not prove anything to be suspicious.

There you go again Grinder. It is NOT suspicious. Since you are so big on dictionary definitons. Adj.. causing one to have the idea or impression that something or someone is of questionable, dishonest, or dangerous character or condition.

Should this info qualify as suspicious? I don't think so. Is it worthy of further routine investigation? Maybe.

 

[Samzilla]

I agree with that. I have always been of the opinion that, however wrongly or incompetently, the police thought the two were guilty.

I think the kids should have been closely looked at, then ruled out because the evidence was not present to prove they were even there at the time of the murder.

The part that looks suspicious to me is how the prosecution embraced witnesses like Toto, Nara, and Mr. Shopkeeper, because they didn't have a case otherwise. How they went back to the cottage to find the bra clasp, after the shoe print evidence collapsed. How they made such a big deal of Amanda's statements about Lumumba, when those statements clearly prove she didn't know what she was talking about (even her coerced story does not fit the evidence). I think they became convinced the kids were guilty based on what they thought was suspicious behavior, and set out to prove it, by hook or by crook.

Is that framing? Or just confirmation bias? At some point, it all becomes a grey muddle. But a lot of people went to great lengths to prop up a case that surely at least some of them knew was weak at best and bogus at worst.

Ah, but a guilty suspect would point the finger at an innocent person because that's what an innocent suspect would do. Mastermind.

 

[Planigale]

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.

Sorry to revisit this. There has been some discussion about when the DNA typing came back and it was realised that the perpetrator was other than Lumumba / Knox / Sollecito.

Surely the first evidence was the bloody palm print. When did the police first become aware that the bloody palm print did not match Sollecito or Knox? I believe fingerprints of the residents and Sollecito were taken as early as Nov 2. A priority would be to match against the bloody palm print. So probably as soon as Nov 4 the presence of someone other than Sollecito and Knox et al. would have been known to the police. This may explain the focus of questioning on the fifth, looking for the third man. Assuming Lumumba was fingerprinted on the sixth, it should have been known by Wednesday the seventh that his print did not match the bloody hand print. Was this when the fourth man meme appeared? Did the prosecution disclose that the key evidence, the bloody palm print did not match any of the suspects when they were remanded to prison?

 

[Numbers]

Sorry to revisit this. There has been some discussion about when the DNA typing came back and it was realised that the perpetrator was other than Lumumba / Knox / Sollecito.

Surely the first evidence was the bloody palm print. When did the police first become aware that the bloody palm print did not match Sollecito or Knox? I believe fingerprints of the residents and Sollecito were taken as early as Nov 2. A priority would be to match against the bloody palm print. So probably as soon as Nov 4 the presence of someone other than Sollecito and Knox et al. would have been known to the police. This may explain the focus of questioning on the fifth, looking for the third man. Assuming Lumumba was fingerprinted on the sixth, it should have been known by Wednesday the seventh that his print did not match the bloody hand print. Was this when the fourth man meme appeared? Did the prosecution disclose that the key evidence, the bloody palm print did not match any of the suspects when they were remanded to prison?

Planigale, thanks for this excellent post. Did the police obtain palm prints as well as finger prints from the residents and others? Was the palm print a good identifier, showing ridges etc. clearly enough? I remember there was discussion on this here(?), but not what was decided!

ETA: And of course the other almost-first forensic evidence would be the DNA results from the rape kit and from the putative semen stain that the police allege they did not test. Now that alleged lack of testing is suspicious.

 

[acbytesla]

The police are trained to view pretty much everything skeptically. That doesn't really make everything suspicious. But keep in mind that in the police's mind "ta da" and a swivel of the hips was suspicious.

We can argue all day and in to tomorrow what is "suspicious" and we would all be right and wrong, To a suspicious mind, anything and everything might be considered suspicious. But to a rational mind should this be considered suspicious? My position is a definitive NO!

 

[Planigale]

Vixen.

You previously stated,

"There was a bloody fingerprint on the small bathroom lightswitch (Amanda's) depressed down, indicating it was dark at the time"

My response
"Not true. There is no fingerprint of Knox in blood. In any case with an internal bathroom one would need to switch the light on (and off) day and night."

You responded,

"Unfortunately for you, court documents show there was. No, the small bathroom had natural light. You just made that up. Sneaky."

Please see the court document
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Fingerprints
The only finger print of Knox was on a glass in the kitchen.

Do you accept that when you said there was a bloody finger print of Knox in the bathroom that this was untrue?

Do you accept that when you said the court documents showed this; that was also untrue?

Also the plan of the flat in the above document shows no window in the small bathroom. There maybe but I can find no picture showing one. Can you prove the assertion there was natural light (and sufficient that routinely switching on a light in November was unnecessary).

 

[Grinder]

I agree with that. I have always been of the opinion that, however wrongly or incompetently, the police thought the two were guilty.

I think the kids should have been closely looked at, then ruled out because the evidence was not present to prove they were even there at the time of the murder.

The part that looks suspicious to me is how the prosecution embraced witnesses like Toto, Nara, and Mr. Shopkeeper, because they didn't have a case otherwise.

Beyond suspicious, bizarre. Nara had nothing to say really. Curatolo was not credible at all. Btw, I mentioned a while back that Rudi in his 2008 statement said there were no buses there that night. Strange that it took the defense 3 years to figure it out. Every aspect of the Italian court system seems weird. The admission of evidence that clearly was tainted and hand waving away of poor protocol etc.

How they went back to the cottage to find the bra clasp, after the shoe print evidence collapsed.

While I believed that for sometime later it was revealed that the second visit needed to be scheduled with the defense and the video was being shown to them in a van, hence the weird showing of clasp to the camera.

How they made such a big deal of Amanda's statements about Lumumba, when those statements clearly prove she didn't know what she was talking about (even her coerced story does not fit the evidence). I think they became convinced the kids were guilty based on what they thought was suspicious behavior, and set out to prove it, by hook or by crook.

The interrogation was improper and it was the comment of De Felice that made me aware something was wrong.

Is that framing? Or just confirmation bias? At some point, it all becomes a grey muddle. But a lot of people went to great lengths to prop up a case that surely at least some of them knew was weak at best and bogus at worst.

I would say true framing didn't start until after it was clear that Lumumba was innocent. What I don't believe is that they started framing the kids immediately, which some here have said.

 

[Grinder]

Also the plan of the flat in the above document shows no window in the small bathroom. There maybe but I can find no picture showing one. Can you prove the assertion there was natural light (and sufficient that routinely switching on a light in November was unnecessary).

Every floor plan I've seen shows no window in their bathroom.

 

[Kauffer]

Vixen.

You previously stated,

"There was a bloody fingerprint on the small bathroom lightswitch (Amanda's) depressed down, indicating it was dark at the time"

My response
"Not true. There is no fingerprint of Knox in blood. In any case with an internal bathroom one would need to switch the light on (and off) day and night."

You responded,

"Unfortunately for you, court documents show there was. No, the small bathroom had natural light. You just made that up. Sneaky."

Please see the court document
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Fingerprints
The only finger print of Knox was on a glass in the kitchen.

Do you accept that when you said there was a bloody finger print of Knox in the bathroom that this was untrue?

Do you accept that when you said the court documents showed this; that was also untrue?

Also the plan of the flat in the above document shows no window in the small bathroom. There maybe but I can find no picture showing one. Can you prove the assertion there was natural light (and sufficient that routinely switching on a light in November was unnecessary).

[qimg]http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t189/zed0101/knoxfloorplans_zpsdfefa84d.jpg[/qimg]

Every floor plan I've seen shows no window in their bathroom.

If you look at the picture in this article, which shows the outside rear of the property, you will see that the only two external walls in the bathroom where there could be a window, have no window. Looking at the picture and using Grinder's floor plan, imagine now walking into the bathroom - through the wall to the right is the deck; through the wall at the rear and to the left is Meredith's window.

There are no windows in the bathroom.

Click on the picture in the link and it will expand.

http://www.today.it/cronaca/perugia-in-vendita-casa-omicidio-meredith.html

 

[Numbers]

....

I would say true framing didn't start until after it was clear that Lumumba was innocent. What I don't believe is that they started framing the kids immediately, which some here have said.

Interesting, that there is now "true framing".
Getting to substance, I would like to point out that in terms of official misconduct, analysis of the DNA testing timeline by IIP volunteers, as pointed out the other day by MichaelB, shows that the Italian police and prosecutor knew when they went before Judge Matteini to justify the arrests that both Raffaele Sollecito and Patrick Lumumba were excluded as individuals who had raped Meredith Kercher:

1. Batch 1: Rudy Guede’s DNA Profile Isolated

In their very first batch of DNA profiling, the authorities derived from a vaginal swab and toilet paper sample obtained the profile of the intruder/rapist, and they knew as of November 6 (the date of the arrest of Sollecito, Knox and Lumumba) that this perpetrator was not Sollecito or Lumumba. This exculpatory information was not immediately disclosed to the defendants, and indeed, the authorities hid the exculpatory DNA results (as well as the still-missing “downstairs” test results) from Judge Matteini, who on November 9 decided on the basis of the prosecution’s evidence to remand the defendants to jail pending trial, and from Judge Ricciardi who later affirmed the pretrial detention order.

Much additional information is available at the site listed below.

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

 

[Ken Dine]

[ ]
Also the plan of the flat in the above document shows no window in the small bathroom. There maybe but I can find no picture showing one. Can you prove the assertion there was natural light (and sufficient that routinely switching on a light in November was unnecessary).

The small bathroom didn't have a window, but I believe it may have had a small skylight, so there may have been some natural light.