• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
:)
I'll join something which discusses the tidal locking of Pluto and Charon any day of the week......
 
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?

There was a short Q and A after and some mingling and chatting over drinks in the room. I certainly identified a kindred spirit who I won't "out" by physical description, but we only had time for a brief nod and a handshake and no exchange of identities as we were both engaging the speakers and facilitator.

This really wasn't the place for "soap boxing" or righteous indignation. These people are involved in fairly rigorous academic analysis. The presenters themselves identified the Guardian, as the case went on, as the source of a pro Amanda narrative, Pisa was identified as the central figure in the mythology making and the notions of feeding frenzy and pack hunting were applied by the researchers.
 
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?
LondonSupporter and LondonJohn both post at IA so are independant. I hope that the press becomes more forthright. In New Zealand, the press hedge their bets till Authority makes a finding. Teina Pora is now touted openly as the greatest miscarriage in NZ history, but this is ridiculous. It is stated not because he was obviously always uninvolved with the crime that saw him do 22 years, but because the British Privy council made a pronouncement. Crap. The facts were always perfectly clear, as they were with Arthur Thomas, David Tamihere, Peter Ellis, Scott Watson, and Mark Lundy. Only Thomas and Pora are seen as miscarriages so far by the people, because Authority spoke.
 
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.

Kauffer, thanks for your report on the conference!

Could you supply some of the details of how the presenters viewed the actual functioning of the Italian judicial system v. the supposed legal requirements or procedures?
 
Kauffer, thanks for your report on the conference!

Could you supply some of the details of how the presenters viewed the actual functioning of the Italian judicial system v. the supposed legal requirements or procedures?

Actually, Numbers, this is not his remit. Dr Montana is examining, narrowly, the socio-legal culture of the prosecutor. So, he's really not looking at the functioning of whole systems.

He readily admitted, with regard to the case that "I am not blind. I can see what is going on. There are huge problems", but he's not approaching his research from the point of view that the system doesn't work functionally as it's supposed to do. What we had from him was some rather early research of how, particularly in the pre-trial phase, prosecutors' perceived their roles - with some differences with regard to their impartiality and their relationship with and differentiation from, judges.

But have a look at this earlier paper:

http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/202/2/...ordination_between_police_and_prosecutors.pdf
 
There was a short Q and A after and some mingling and chatting over drinks in the room. I certainly identified a kindred spirit who I won't "out" by physical description, but we only had time for a brief nod and a handshake and no exchange of identities as we were both engaging the speakers and facilitator.

This really wasn't the place for "soap boxing" or righteous indignation. These people are involved in fairly rigorous academic analysis. The presenters themselves identified the Guardian, as the case went on, as the source of a pro Amanda narrative, Pisa was identified as the central figure in the mythology making and the notions of feeding frenzy and pack hunting were applied by the researchers.

I don't think Pisa was there for the very beginning. The first report I find was the 3rd but it looks phoned in. The next report is on the 6th.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-student-meredith-kercher-found-518249

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/nov/06/italy.ukcrime

I don't think he started Foxy Knoxy and I'm sure many reporters went to MySpace.
 
I don't think Pisa was there for the very beginning. The first report I find was the 3rd but it looks phoned in. The next report is on the 6th.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-student-meredith-kercher-found-518249

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/nov/06/italy.ukcrime

I don't think he started Foxy Knoxy and I'm sure many reporters went to MySpace.

Yes, I'm sure that lots did.

Perhaps this is the first mention of Foxy Knoxy:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...orld-flatmate-suspected-Merediths-murder.html

This is written the day of the arrest.
 
I hadn't realized that Kercher's blood had been found in Filomena's room. It had probably been discussed but I had forgotten about it if it has been.


Barbie Nadeau said:
Of those five ["spots where the blood and DNA of the roommates had commingled"], the most damning is a drop of Kercher's blood with Knox's DNA found (with the aid of Luminol, a substance used in crime-scene investigations to find blood that has been cleaned up) in the bedroom of Filomena Romanelli, one of the two Italian women who also lived in the house.
http://www.newsweek.com/heres-how-evidence-stacks-amanda-knox-81211

So Guede made his way back to Filomena's room? Was Knox's DNA found with this sample?
 
There was a short Q and A after and some mingling and chatting over drinks in the room. I certainly identified a kindred spirit who I won't "out" by physical description, but we only had time for a brief nod and a handshake and no exchange of identities as we were both engaging the speakers and facilitator.

This really wasn't the place for "soap boxing" or righteous indignation. These people are involved in fairly rigorous academic analysis. The presenters themselves identified the Guardian, as the case went on, as the source of a pro Amanda narrative, Pisa was identified as the central figure in the mythology making and the notions of feeding frenzy and pack hunting were applied by the researchers.

In Winterbottom's "The Face of an Angel," the Nick Pisa-character is the chief tabloid hack who is trashed by Daniel, played by Daniel Bruhl. Barbie Latza Nadeau comes a close second - ironic because the title comes from the book whose rights Winterbottom bought from Nadeau.

Significant is this - at this point, no guilter would ever organize a counter-conference like this one, only from their perspective. Nothing proves that the guilter-PR-effort is now dead in the water. All begun by the likes of Pisa in the furious attempt to monetize Meredith's death - only Nadeau comes out with a wad of cash, really.....
 
I hadn't realized that Kercher's blood had been found in Filomena's room. It had probably been discussed but I had forgotten about it if it has been.



http://www.newsweek.com/heres-how-evidence-stacks-amanda-knox-81211

So Guede made his way back to Filomena's room? Was Knox's DNA found with this sample?

"The prints are of bare feet, detected in Romanelli’s room (176 and 177), in Knox’s room (178, 179, 180), in the corridor (184, rectius [Latin: “more correctly”] 183).

According to the indications in the SAL [Stato Avanzamento Lavori, “State of Work Progress”] files of the genetic lab of the Scientific Police, the generic test for blood was performed on these footprints, which gave a negative response."
Hellmann
 
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.

I generally agree with your scenario since it is the most logical.

I've seen the Oggi photos, and while they looked around at something it wasn't necessarily caused by Meredith screaming. The cottage has thick brick walls with smaller windows and a tile roof, all of which would inhibit noise, and Meredith's small bedroom window pointed in the opposite direction of the garage and apartments. The defense wanted to conduct audiotronic testing to prove that Nara couldn't have heard Meredith scream, but Massei (of course) turned down their request.

A film crew did conduct its own impromptu audio test – Nara wouldn't let them into her apartment, but her neighbor allowed the crew in, and with the dual-pane windows closed and with hired local boys running down the street, the guy on camera inside couldn't hear a thing outside, so Nara obviously lied about hearing perps running away after the murder (see below video).

A better TOD could be determined if the police released the CCTV camera's video of Guede walking away from the cottage after the murder. A reporter claims to have seen it, but stated the police had scrubbed the time-stamp from it, which is typical if it had any exculpatory value.

Not sure if Guede chased Meredith around much, if at all? He may have snuck up on her from behind?

Of course, OJ Simpson quickly took out his adult ex-wife and Ron Goldman on the front porch of her condo, and OJ managed to quickly subdue and kill two adults in their prime, and at least one of them likely saw OJ coming – experts said OJ's attack was probably over in a minute, or less. Nicole's neighbors never heard shouts or any scuffle; as I recall, they only heard a dog barking.

Here's the video of the impromptu audio test conducted through the dual-pane windows of Nara Capezzali's neighbor (nothing was heard) - if you've never seen this video before, it's worth watching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd-Th8lIxyo
 
Last edited:
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).

Maybe I could have worded it better: there was a smear of Mez' blood on the light switch. (Put there by Amanda's finger on balance of probabilties.)

The issue about the lightswitch and day time is part of the prosecution's (Mignini) closing submissions at the preliminary hearing (likely similar to the main, not transcribed). He makes an issue that the finger mark depresses the light switch, so was done in darkness hours.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I could have worded it better: there was a smear of Mez' blood on the light switch. (Put there by Amanda's finger on balance of probabilties.)
The issue about the lightswitch and day time is part of the prosecution's (Mignini) closing submissions at the preliminary hearing (likely similar to the main, not transcribed). He makes an issu that the finger mark depresses the light switch, so was done in darkness hours.

Out of curiosity Vixen, how do you assign those probabilities?
 
Last edited:
Maybe I could have worded it better: there was a smear of Mez' blood on the light switch. (Put there by Amanda's finger on balance of probabilties.)

The issue about the lightswitch and day time is part of the prosecution's (Mignini) closing submissions at the preliminary hearing (likely similar to the main, not transcribed). He makes an issu that the finger mark depresses the light switch, so was done in darkness hours.

Funny how you inadvertently use the term "balance of probabilities", when that is below the level of proof in a criminal trial. In any case, it is utter nonsense. You want it to be Amanda, so it's Amanda. Before, you said it was her print which had been identified.

But the whole bathroom blood issue brings us right back to the the question of cleaning. It would have taken someone ten minutes to wipe down the visible samples in the bathroom and collect the mat. Since Amanda phoned Filomena on the morning of the second after her first visit to the cottage, we know she was aware of the evidence there. So why didn't she clean it, if she was guilty? Why would someone, according to you, go to great lengths to bleach clean the apartment in high detail, but leave what she could only have concluded was identifying evidence of herself in the bathroom?
 
I agree with everything you posted, but I made one correction since I believe it was Filomena who had counseled Amanda to not mention their pot smoking to the police?


Great post. I do think it was Sophie, though, who counseled this to Amanda. It's why Ficara was able to approach Amanda late on Nov 5th with, "Now it's the time for truth and no more lies." Amanda had, in fact, been caught out on this one.

However, why not the others who similarly lied?

I don't think Sophie even knew about Amanda smoking pot since she didn't hang around with Amanda much. Maybe, once or twice Amanda was with Meredith as all the gals went bar hopping, but they were likely only drinking on those occasions.

I think what Sophie was more concerned about was the pot plants Meredith was watering for her boyfriend downstairs – Sophie would have known about that since Meredith had complained to her English girlfriends about being asked to water the plants. Sophie was likely concerned about Meredith's reputation at that point.

Filomena was studying to be a lawyer, so her concern at being outed as a pot smoker had her personally concerned.

Grinder is making the point that Filomena simply had more witnesses to her whereabouts, compared with Amanda who only had Raffaele.

Grinder assumed that Filomena was still at the B-day party in the evening of the murder, but there's no evidence they were still there since the police didn't bother to check Filomena's alibi.

Filomena was the clean-freak, not Meredith, so perhaps Filomena stopped by the cottage after the B-day party, saw Guede on her toilet, and went into a rage?

I don't seriously think Filomena is guilty, just making the point that Filomena fit the same profile as Amanda (e.g., both had keys and the same alibi).

Well, how did that go? My view is that it would not have been a stretch to arrest the lot of them, everyone within Filomena's circle-of-alibi, and accuse the lot of them of a Satanic ritual sacrifice.

With Raffaele, they showed themselves at least open to the concept. Neither of the first two memorandums implicated Raffaele at all, in fact the second one said they were not sure if or how Raffaele had been involved - and on that, they rushed out and arrested Lumumba!!!!

So they already had two others (substitute Rudy Guede for Lumumba) involved in a ritualistic, Halloe'en inspired sex-murder.

If the suspect-centrism had fallen onto Filomena, it just would have been a bigger party proposed by Mignini.

Then again, maybe Sophie had hooked up with Guede while partying the night before, and Sophie w/ Guede had hatched the murderous plot?

Just kidding since this was obviously Guede all the way.
 
I generally agree with your scenario since it is the most logical.

I've seen the Oggi photos, and while they looked around at something it wasn't necessarily caused by Meredith screaming. The cottage has thick brick walls with smaller windows and a tile roof, all of which would inhibit noise, and Meredith's small bedroom window pointed in the opposite direction of the garage and apartments. The defense wanted to conduct audiotronic testing to prove that Nara couldn't have heard Meredith scream, but Mignini (of course) turned down their request.

A film crew did conduct its own impromptu audio test – Nara wouldn't let them into her apartment, but her neighbor allowed the crew in, and with the dual-pane windows closed and with hired local boys running down the street, the guy on camera inside couldn't hear a thing outside, so Nara obviously lied about hearing perps running away after the murder (see below video).

A better TOD could be determined if the police released the CCTV camera's video of Guede walking away from the cottage after the murder. A reporter claims to have seen it, but stated the police had scrubbed the time-stamp from it, which is typical if it had any exculpatory value.
Not sure if Guede chased Meredith around much, if at all? He may have snuck up on her from behind?

Of course, OJ Simpson quickly took out his adult ex-wife and Ron Goldman on the front porch of her condo, and OJ managed to quickly subdue and kill two adults in their prime, and at least one of them likely saw OJ coming – experts said OJ's attack was probably over in a minute, or less. Nicole's neighbors never heard shouts or any scuffle; as I recall, they only heard a dog barking.

Here's the video of the impromptu audio test conducted through the dual-pane windows of Nara Capezzali's neighbor (nothing was heard) - if you've never seen this video before, it's worth watching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd-Th8lIxyo

1st hilite - At this point in time when Meredith presumably screamed, as per Guede's account IIRC, (and possibly cooborated by the Oggi pictures of the CCTV video tape from the garage - the different sets of people are all looking in the direction of the cottage, - Filomena's window was already broken. This is supported by the presence of the glass fragment in Guede's footprint in Meredith's wet blood. So the sound comparison to Nara, through her double pained window, isn't a clear comparison.
Secondly, Nara was an elderly lady, IIRC, half deaf, and had previously been confined to a psyche ward in an asylum. She doesn't have to be lying, just have convinced herself that she saw something, and then keep reinforcing it in her head until she thinks its real. Not reliable, but not the same as lying. (I don't know of course whether she lied or fooled herself, but listening to her describe the incidents, I was struck by how much her account seems to have come directly from press reports. The idea her testimony would be comsidered credible is just bizarre. Wasn't she another one of the finds by that cub journalist, Foie?

2nd hilite - I hadn't heard this detail before, that Rudy was captured on the CCTV leaving the cottage. (DANO has been great on piecing together what images could be captured on what cameras). I thought Guede was spotted running up the stairs after the crime, when he bumped into a couple on their way down? But I may have that detail wrong. Anyway, I'd like to know more about the reporter claiming to have seen Guede leaving the cottage on the CCTV tape, that's news ot me.

3rd Hilite - DANO had shown pics or pointed to clothing disturbed around the kitchen or living room, IIRC, its a fair ways up thread by this point. Maybe an overturned chair too? I'm not sure, but I believe there was indications of a scuffle or a chase outside Meredith's room. I imagine her running there and trying to get the door closed before Guede can get to her, when she might have been able to call the police. But obviously that didn't happen, or we never would have heard of the case.

But I do recall there seemed to be some evidence of a chase or scuffle outside Meredith's room, so I don't think Guede first surprised her there in her room. As I say, I think Guede tried to leave without confrontation as he had always done before, and found himself locked in. At that point I think Meredith might have noticed him. The only other way out that Guede knew of at that point, would have been Filomena's window, and to get there he'd have had to go by Meredith's room - unless he could have opened another window and escaped - which also might have drawn Meredith's attention.

ETA- OOPS - just noticed that Filomena's room is next to the front door, so he would only have had to start walking back towards Meredith's room to get to Filomena's door, and if Meredith came out from the noise of Guede trying to open the front door, then, they see each other, and the assault is on. Would be interesting to know if any of the overturned stuff were in between the front door and Meredith's bedroom. referring to the layout Grinder posted on page 41, #1637, it seems to be in the right spot. Calling DANO, Calling DANO, Come in DANO... specific details needed...
I find this area of analysis to be fascinating, because I think there's a lot there to piece together.

The comparison to OJ is difficult to find relevance because its a completely different crime, with a completely different set of evidence. OJ was also a former world class athlete. Guede was semi-pro, obviously highly athletic, but overpowering a much smaller woman hardly seems an impossible task for him. Meredith's bruises and injuries document how much of a fight she was able to put up, and the single set of footprints in blood, shows Guede acted alone.
 
Last edited:
Funny how you inadvertently use the term "balance of probabilities", when that is below the level of proof in a criminal trial. In any case, it is utter nonsense. You want it to be Amanda, so it's Amanda. Before, you said it was her print which had been identified.

But the whole bathroom blood issue brings us right back to the the question of cleaning. It would have taken someone ten minutes to wipe down the visible samples in the bathroom and collect the mat. Since Amanda phoned Filomena on the morning of the second after her first visit to the cottage, we know she was aware of the evidence there. So why didn't she clean it, if she was guilty? Why would someone, according to you, go to great lengths to bleach clean the apartment in high detail, but leave what she could only have concluded was identifying evidence of herself in the bathroom?

Because a guilty person trying to appear innocent would leave some evidence and point it out to others so they could then use your exact argument. "If I was guilty, wouldn't I have cleaned that up?!?". Mastermind. :p (yes, this post is sarcasm)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom