Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

I've got one from the deck and one looking up from inside the small bath.

That's two.

 

[carbonjam72]

Vixen's point was that since Amanda's bloody print was on the light switch (a false premise), the fact that there was natural light in the bathroom meant that if she needed to turn the light on, this proves it was dark when she did so.

Since Amanda's bloody print is not on the switch, the question of whether there was enough natural light in the bathroom so that the light didn't need to be used in the daytime has no bearing on anything. But we still explored the question of the light anyway! Rather unnecessarily, in hindsight.

ETA: However, the question of natural light in Amanda's room is relevant. Her main room light was not working, so, when she entered her room on the morning of the 2nd, if she hadn't had enough natural light to see by, she would have noticed whether or not her lamp was missing when she went to turn it on.

Kauffer - Did you make it to the legal conference on the media circus, and the role of the prosecutor tonight?

We're (i am anyway), anxiously awaiting the report. Did any guilters show up to share their wisdom on the case?

Please, I beg of you, do not keep us in suspense!

 

[Ken Dine]

Here's another angle:

One can see the skylight between some leaves.

This angle of the cottage certainly shows how much easier it should have been for Guede to have reached the upper patio than Filomena's window. However, if the patio door was shuttered and locked as it was in this picture, and since Filomena admitted her window's shutters were swollen to the point they couldn't be fully closed, Filomena's open shutters may have been the tipping point for Guede's decision to enter that way.

Then again, Guede may have merely thrown the rock thru Filomena's window to check to see if anyone was home and turned on a light (a common burglar tactic). The garage's CTTV camera across from the cottage captured Guede walking towards the cottage shortly before 8:00 pm (apparently when he went to throw the rock), and then at 8:22 pm again walking towards the cottage after Guede may have decided the coast was clear since no lights were turned on.

Of course, Guede may have thrown the rock to see if anyone was home, and then later Guede may have seen Meredith walking home and followed her and forced his way thru the front door once she opened it?

One way or the other around 9:00 pm on Nov 1, 2007, Guede and Meredith were both alone in the cottage, and it didn't turn out well.

It's also quite clear that Amanda & Raffaele weren't involved, but I'm not 100% sure about Filomena!

 

[Ken Dine]

It was a waning half-moon.... at 9:30 pm in Perugia it was 60 degrees high in the southern sky.

Ah! Ha! Methinks we have someone here interested in astronomy?

I've read this forum for years, but my actual motivation to recently join really wasn't to participate about Amanda Knox since that case 'SHOULD' already be concluded (just a few remnant 'Guilters' thrashing about who can't accept reality.)

By posting here in Amanda's thread I actually just wanted to get some posts under my belt in order to be able start a thread about our moon, specifically about the theory of lunar synchronous rotation, which is ripe for skeptical review.

After I get around to starting that thread, I hope to see you there.

 

[MichaelB]

Stefano Bonassi Statement 3-Nov-2007: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Stefano-Bonassi-Statement-3-Nov-2007.pdf

Some interesting things in there....

I left the duvet over the two bed cushions to avoid them getting covered with dust.

The small bathroom is used by all to shower and we leave the window open, as a rule, to let the shower floor dry up.

I don't know what to say regarding the blue pillowcase stained with blood because it was hanging and clean when I left.

I don't know how to explain the traces of blood on my duvet given that my door was locked with a key as well as the window.
Now I'm off to find a pic of the blue pillowcase he says was hanging when he left.

 

[Numbers]

Stefano Bonassi Statement 3-Nov-2007: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Stefano-Bonassi-Statement-3-Nov-2007.pdf

Some interesting things in there....

I left the duvet over the two bed cushions to avoid them getting covered with dust.

The small bathroom is used by all to shower and we leave the window open, as a rule, to let the shower floor dry up.

I don't know what to say regarding the blue pillowcase stained with blood because it was hanging and clean when I left.

I don't know how to explain the traces of blood on my duvet given that my door was locked with a key as well as the window.
Now I'm off to find a pic of the blue pillowcase he says was hanging when he left.

Now this is interesting.

Since the police knew that there were indeed strange findings downstairs such as the pillowcase and the duvet bloodstains under the circumstances Bonassi describes, and house cats have such limited abilities to open locked doors, it seems to me that the police treatment or lack of treatment of this information constitutes police misconduct as of Nov. 3, 2007.

This appears to be the earliest clear documented instance where the police should be pressing an investigatory approach, and do not, and incompetence would not seem a defense. This appears to be police misconduct by an intentional neglect of a duty to investigate.

If Bonassi's statements are true, then there was a human in the downstairs appartment while the downstairs boys were away, and the bloodstains are likely associated with that human.

 

[MichaelB]

Now this is interesting.

Since the police knew that there were indeed strange findings downstairs such as the pillowcase and the duvet bloodstains under the circumstances Bonassi describes, and house cats have such limited abilities to open locked doors, it seems to me that the police treatment or lack of treatment of this information constitutes police misconduct as of Nov. 3, 2007.

This appears to be the earliest clear documented instance where the police should be pressing an investigatory approach, and do not, and incompetence would not seem a defense. This appears to be police misconduct by an intentional neglect of a duty to investigate.

If Bonassi's statements are true, then there was a human in the downstairs appartment while the downstairs boys were away, and the bloodstains are likely associated with that human.

Is this the blue pillow case? They're zooming in on what looks like blood.

 

[Numbers]

Is this the blue pillow case? They're zooming in on what looks like blood.

It could be a pillowcase.

At one point on ISF/JREF, IIRC some of us were seeing this apparent fabric item as a pair of men's underpants.

It certainly seems to be blue-colored with some darker areas that might be bloodstains.

 

[carbonjam72]

Stefano Bonassi Statement 3-Nov-2007: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Stefano-Bonassi-Statement-3-Nov-2007.pdf

Some interesting things in there....

I left the duvet over the two bed cushions to avoid them getting covered with dust.

The small bathroom is used by all to shower and we leave the window open, as a rule, to let the shower floor dry up.

I don't know what to say regarding the blue pillowcase stained with blood because it was hanging and clean when I left.

I don't know how to explain the traces of blood on my duvet given that my door was locked with a key as well as the window.
Now I'm off to find a pic of the blue pillowcase he says was hanging when he left.

Anything about missing a pair of pants?

 

[carbonjam72]

Now this is interesting.

Since the police knew that there were indeed strange findings downstairs such as the pillowcase and the duvet bloodstains under the circumstances Bonassi describes, and house cats have such limited abilities to open locked doors, it seems to me that the police treatment or lack of treatment of this information constitutes police misconduct as of Nov. 3, 2007.

This appears to be the earliest clear documented instance where the police should be pressing an investigatory approach, and do not, and incompetence would not seem a defense. This appears to be police misconduct by an intentional neglect of a duty to investigate.
If Bonassi's statements are true, then there was a human in the downstairs appartment while the downstairs boys were away, and the bloodstains are likely associated with that human.

Ok, so why is this happening? Seems to me this is an acknowledgment there has to be a reason to explain this behavior.

If its not the police protecting Rudy Guede, and/or framing innocent defendants, then what explains this conduct?

What are they hiding?

 

[carbonjam72]

This angle of the cottage certainly shows how much easier it should have been for Guede to have reached the upper patio than Filomena's window. However, if the patio door was shuttered and locked as it was in this picture, and since Filomena admitted her window's shutters were swollen to the point they couldn't be fully closed, Filomena's open shutters may have been the tipping point for Guede's decision to enter that way.

Then again, Guede may have merely thrown the rock thru Filomena's window to check to see if anyone was home and turned on a light (a common burglar tactic). The garage's CTTV camera across from the cottage captured Guede walking towards the cottage shortly before 8:00 pm (apparently when he went to throw the rock), and then at 8:22 pm again walking towards the cottage after Guede may have decided the coast was clear since no lights were turned on.

Of course, Guede may have thrown the rock to see if anyone was home, and then later Guede may have seen Meredith walking home and followed her and forced his way thru the front door once she opened it?
One way or the other around 9:00 pm on Nov 1, 2007, Guede and Meredith were both alone in the cottage, and it didn't turn out well.

It's also quite clear that Amanda & Raffaele weren't involved, but I'm not 100% sure about Filomena!

Hey Ken, I've enjoyed your many thorough and insightful posts.

On the hilighted, this scenario would ignore the finding by Hellman of the print of a glass fragment in Rudy's shoe-print in Meredith's wet blood, suggesting that Rudy stepped through the broken glass in Filomena's room before attacking Meredith.

Also, the unflushed toilet on the far end of the house has no blood traces around it, right? Suggests Rudy did his kabob business before Meredith came home.

Best I can see, Rudy was in the bathroom when Meredith came home.

My guess is also that Rudy tried to leave out the front door to avoid confrontation, but found it locked. At some point Meredith is aware of his presence and starts screaming (have you seen the video still frames that Oggi published from the car park, with different sets of people all looking towards the cottage at the same time on the CCTV video?). Also, extensive bruising on Meredith's mouth, as though Rudy tried to violently silence her.

Possibly a chase around the inside of the house and into Meredith's room, and finally an assault escalating to death.

My guess is the sexual element entered the picture, only after Rudy had already mortally wounded Meredith. Sex assault was not the reason for engaging physically with Meredith, I think self-preservation was Rudy's reason for attacking Meredith because she wouldn't stop screaming for help.

 

[RoseMontague]

This angle of the cottage certainly shows how much easier it should have been for Guede to have reached the upper patio than Filomena's window. However, if the patio door was shuttered and locked as it was in this picture, and since Filomena admitted her window's shutters were swollen to the point they couldn't be fully closed, Filomena's open shutters may have been the tipping point for Guede's decision to enter that way.

Then again, Guede may have merely thrown the rock thru Filomena's window to check to see if anyone was home and turned on a light (a common burglar tactic). The garage's CTTV camera across from the cottage captured Guede walking towards the cottage shortly before 8:00 pm (apparently when he went to throw the rock), and then at 8:22 pm again walking towards the cottage after Guede may have decided the coast was clear since no lights were turned on.

Of course, Guede may have thrown the rock to see if anyone was home, and then later Guede may have seen Meredith walking home and followed her and forced his way thru the front door once she opened it?

One way or the other around 9:00 pm on Nov 1, 2007, Guede and Meredith were both alone in the cottage, and it didn't turn out well.

It's also quite clear that Amanda & Raffaele weren't involved, but I'm not 100% sure about Filomena!

There is also that big light right there near the balcony that may have been on at the time. I remember searching for a reference for this before all the transcripts came out. It might be worth taking another look as I never found a single mention of it.

 

[MichaelB]

It could be a pillowcase.

At one point on ISF/JREF, IIRC some of us were seeing this apparent fabric item as a pair of men's underpants.

It certainly seems to be blue-colored with some darker areas that might be bloodstains.

It's the pillow case. You can see the clothes line above it which Bonassi says the pillow case was hanging on.

 

[MichaelB]

Bonassi Statement 4-Nov-2007: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Stefano-Bonassi-Statement-4-Nov-2007.pdf

 

[carbonjam72]

Bonassi Statement 4-Nov-2007: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Stefano-Bonassi-Statement-4-Nov-2007.pdf

Also, another young man visited our place, nicknamed “the baron,” shorter than myself, whose name I do not remember, of South African origin.
A: One evening, I found the latter person at my place as soon as I came back; he was with my friends. That time, the fellow was really drunk and actually fell asleep on the toilet bowl.

A: That young man was physically attracted to Amanda. A: Peppe certainly knew Meredith but I’m not sure if the South African guy did.

A: Another young man who came to our place once is a tall, lean young man wearing tennis shoes and baggy pants, nicknamed Body Roga.
A: The tennis shoes often worn by the young man are large, of a large size; I don’t know the brand.

Is the "shorter" guy "The Baron" of 'South African origin', the same guy as "Body Roga" with the extra large sneakers?

I thought these were both references to Rudy Guede, but one (the baron) is described as 'shorter', while the other (body roga) is described as "tall and lean"?

Sounds like two different guys from this description by Bonassi, but I was under the impression that these are both referring to Rudy Guede?

Have I got this issue confused?

 

[Samson]

Kauffer - Did you make it to the legal conference on the media circus, and the role of the prosecutor tonight?

We're (i am anyway), anxiously awaiting the report. Did any guilters show up to share their wisdom on the case?

Please, I beg of you, do not keep us in suspense!

There is an excellent report by LondonSupporter on IA.

http://injusticeanywhereforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=747&start=50400

 

[carbonjam72]

There is an excellent report by LondonSupporter on IA.

http://injusticeanywhereforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=747&start=50400

Thanks Samson. Hadn't heard from LJ lately, is that where the discussion is moving?

 

[Samson]

Thanks Samson. Hadn't heard from LJ lately, is that where the discussion is moving?

Not LJ, LondonSupporter. LJ will be back I am sure. But definitely join IA, many fascinating cases are discussed. The podcasts are riveting.

https://www.spreaker.com/page#!/user/injusticeanywhere

click on episodes to see them listed. They are long, not once over lightly.

The Lundy case features Chris Halkides, and the Nyki Kish, Anglolawyer.

Also Charlie Wilkes is well worth checking on the Christopher Tapp case, he seems to be helping Mike Heavey of Seattle and Amanda Knox fame.

http://injusticeanywhereforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=123&t=2887

 

[Kauffer]

Kauffer - Did you make it to the legal conference on the media circus, and the role of the prosecutor tonight?

We're (i am anyway), anxiously awaiting the report. Did any guilters show up to share their wisdom on the case?

Please, I beg of you, do not keep us in suspense!

There is an excellent report by LondonSupporter on IA.

http://injusticeanywhereforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=747&start=50400

Yep, I did make it. None of the easily identifiable guilters but one suspect who kept herself to herself, yet clearly knew more about the case than she wanted anyone to know she knew.

This was not an investigation or discussion about the merits of the evidence.

The presentations were really a road test of ideas for future publications. The law professor's piece was something of a tack on and prelude to the media analysis. He really was not case savvy. He had understood, for example, that Guede had plead guilty, so he clearly has little working knowledge of the fast track system.

The Kercher murder handling is not his remit - it's a socio-legal perspective on the positioning of the prosecutor within the Italian justice system - a little dry with rather undefined parameters as yet. He's been back to Italy to interview prosecutors and judges about their perceptions of their roles - some of the outcomes relating to self image are rather surprising in fact - but he has studiously avoided any contact with the actors in the Kercher murder because he's worried that at the present time their own perceptions will be skewed by their involvement in such a devastating case.

The media analysis was perceptively handled - they've done a lot of work on the entire history, which they presented in summary form and then gave a deeper analysis of one day's UK national newspaper coverage - November 7th.

An interesting point, which the poster on IP recounted too, was that the "caso chiuso" conference did not make any mention of the 'confession'.

Both media presenters identified Nick Pisa as a driver in the case, how he revelled in the lack of sub judice restrictions that would have applied if the murder had occurred in the UK.

They identified the different contextual representations of Amanda in different publications - 1) Neutrally, as one of three suspects (Guardian, Independent - Times and Telegraph less definitively so) 2) As part of a "sick couple", with Lumumba marginalised, (Mirror, Sun, Star) and 3) "Foxy Knoxy" alone, with both Lumumba and Raffaele marginalised, (Mail).

Then we have the notion, via police leaking, of Amanda needing to have been "broken", forced to admit her role. Later, they see the development of the Foxy Knoxy myth, the press running as a pack feeding off each other and recycling each other's stories.

There was a brief, cursory analysis of the choice of photographs and their subliminal effects - the picture of Raffaele with the meat clever next to Amanda holding the little bear, the gatling gun and the all in black pose and so on.

Finally, there was a consideration of Amanda's "celebrification" and "commodification" as a motive for the "mediatisation" of her story and a comparison with the Hindley representations - the media recreation of the femme fatale, the "killer type" with "killer looks" and a "killer mind".

Atalanta Goulandris, one of the presenters, is an ex criminal barrister and now PHD student. She's very smart and there was definitely a sense of restrained feminist outrage at Amanda's treatment. She knew more of the case evidence than the others and clearly regarded it as nonsense.

ETA: One additional point made was that the press drew from Amanda and Raffaele's social media presence but they didn't with Lumumba. Lumumba had no social media involvement.

 

[carbonjam72]

Yep, I did make it. None of the easily identifiable guilters but one suspect who kept herself to herself, yet clearly knew more about the case than she wanted anyone to know she knew.

This was not an investigation or discussion about the merits of the evidence.

The presentations were really a road test of ideas for future publications. The law professor's piece was something of a tack on and prelude to the media analysis. He really was not case savvy. He had understood, for example, that Guede had plead guilty, so he clearly has little working knowledge of the fast track system.

The Kercher murder handling is not his remit - it's a socio-legal perspective on the positioning of the prosecutor within the Italian justice system - a little dry with rather undefined parameters as yet. He's been back to Italy to interview prosecutors and judges about their perceptions of their roles - some of the outcomes relating to self image are rather surprising in fact - but he has studiously avoided any contact with the actors in the Kercher murder because he's worried that at the present time their own perceptions will be skewed by their involvement in such a devastating case.

The media analysis was perceptively handled - they've done a lot of work on the entire history, which they presented in summary form and then gave a deeper analysis of one day's UK national newspaper coverage - November 7th.

An interesting point, which the poster on IP recounted too, was that the "caso chiuso" conference did not make any mention of the 'confession'.

Both media presenters identified Nick Pisa as a driver in the case, how he revelled in the lack of sub judice restrictions that would have applied if the murder had occurred in the UK.

They identified the different contextual representations of Amanda in different publications - 1) Neutrally, as one of three suspects (Guardian, Independent - Times and Telegraph less definitively so) 2) As part of a "sick couple", with Lumumba marginalised, (Mirror, Sun, Star) and 3) "Foxy Knoxy" alone, with both Lumumba and Raffaele marginalised, (Mail).

Then we have the notion, via police leaking, of Amanda needing to have been "broken", forced to admit her role. Later, they see the development of the Foxy Knoxy myth, the press running as a pack feeding off each other and recycling each other's stories.

There was a brief, cursory analysis of the choice of photographs and their subliminal effects - the picture of Raffaele with the meat clever next to Amanda holding the little bear, the gatling gun and the all in black pose and so on.

Finally, there was a consideration of Amanda's "celebrification" and "commodification" as a motive for the "mediatisation" of her story and a comparison with the Hindley representations - the media recreation of the femme fatale, the "killer type" with "killer looks" and a "killer mind".

Atalanta Goulandris, one of the presenters, is an ex criminal barrister and now PHD student. She's very smart and there was definitely a sense of restrained feminist outrage at Amanda's treatment. She knew more of the case evidence than the others and clearly regarded it as nonsense.

ETA: One additional point made was that the press drew from Amanda and Raffaele's social media presence but they didn't with Lumumba. Lumumba had no social media involvement.

Thanks Kauffer, this was interesting to read. (I thought LJ had mentioned he was going last night, thought you two might meet up and get a pint. If LJ isn't LondonSupporter, then I guess there's a third poster who attended.

Was there any Q & A? Did no one ask them where the voice of reason was for 7+ years in the UK?

I see news coverage from slander to neutral, but what about calling out Mignini for being the lying nutcase he is?