Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Strozzi]

The problem with this approach is that Rudi hadn't discussed his "deal" with Mignini until well after his Skype with his buddy. He admits to being there during the murder but is adamant that the "sperm" isn't his.

ETA - As I said yesterday the only reason I can think of is that he forgot he had left semen behind. But even if he had forgotten why when reading the reports that they had found "sperm" didn't he make a story to "innocently" cover. "I don't remember that happening Giacomo but I was pretty hot before going to the bathroom".

He even covered the downstairs by saying he heard noises down there.

Rudi was able to explain away some things but not all. He read the media coverage and wove some otherwise-condemnatory evidence into his cover story.

He did not offer a cover story for leaving his semen on the pillow. Rudi may not have thought about that, or perhaps he did not realize where he left it. (Understandable, right? We all occasionally forget where we left something. )

He did not, for example, have a cover story to explain his presence in the downstairs flat. The PLE chose to not pursue at trial the post-murder presence of someone downstairs, and Stefanoni shut down it by claiming that it was the cat - only the cat.

 

[Strozzi]

Many people remove the condom just before ejaculation.

I just wish Machiavelli was here to argue this. I'd like to see that debate play out.

 

[Dougm]

At: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/failed-sexual-assault-investigation/


I don't recall seeing the defense brief requesting that the Court order further testing of the putative semen stain, but my understanding from other reading is that it was requested. Perhaps someone such as MichaelB or DanO with excellent indexing and document resources would be able to point it out.

I don't have a cite, but it is my recollection that the Defense requested the stain be tested at both the Hellmann and Nencini trials, and were denied both times.

 

[Strozzi]

Asphyxia would come into that category. Remember Michael Hutchence? His death was due to auto-asphyxia for sexual pleasure - apparently the orgasm is enhanced. Oddly perhaps, there is a "sub-category" of SM sex involving knife play and so-called "fear play", including actual cutting. The Kercher murder involved nothing like this - there is clear intent.

Kauffer, you seem to know a lot about this. Would you care to elaborate?

 

[Grinder]

Rudi was able to explain away some things but not all. He read the media coverage and wove some otherwise-condemnatory evidence into his cover story.

He did not offer a cover story for leaving his semen on the pillow. Rudi may not have thought about that, or perhaps he did not realize where he left it. (Understandable, right? We all occasionally forget where we left something. )

He did not, for example, have a cover story to explain his presence in the downstairs flat. The PLE chose to not pursue at trial the post-murder presence of someone downstairs, and Stefanoni shut down it by claiming that it was the cat - only the cat.

From phone -He did cover the downstairs by saying he heard noises.

He did specifically address the semen issue. He was totally aware that semen had been reported to be found. I don"t remember reading that at the time but he did in the Italian coverage.

People should read the German accounts. Do we have the German police interview?

 

[Grinder]

I don't have a cite, but it is my recollection that the Defense requested the stain be tested at both the Hellmann and Nencini trials, and were denied both times.

Check Massei. He's the one that said DNA can't be dated IIRC

 

[RWVBWL]

I don't have a cite, but it is my recollection that the Defense requested the stain be tested at both the Hellmann and Nencini trials, and were denied both times.

The Stain.

There are 2 probable seminal fluid stains.

The 1 on the edge of the pillow case,
which is actually two globules joined by a strand.

And the 1 which Rudy stepped in elsewhere in Meredith's bedroom(?)
and then left as a sneaker sole imprint near Miss Kercher's left hip.

Which 1 would you test?
Italian Courts said none?

 

[RWVBWL]

From phone -He did cover the downstairs by saying he heard noises.

He did specifically address the semen issue. He was totally aware that semen had been reported to be found. I don"t remember reading that at the time but he did in the Italian coverage.

People should read the German accounts. Do we have the German police interview?

Hi,
Here's 1 translation of Rudy's German prison Diary:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Rudy_Guede's_Prison_Diary_(Translated)

It would be great to read of Rudy's Interrogation by German Police.
Candace Dempsey wrote some info of about this years ago,
it's been all the info that I'd ever read of before.

Go about halfway down the linked page of hers and have a read of this:
Rudy Guede, statement to German authorities, Koblenz, Nov. 21, 2007.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/04/28/rudy-guede-amanda-knox-was-not-there/



It would also be great to read that looong 1st Interrogation that Rudy Guede had with PM Mignini
on Dec. 7, 2007 after being extradited from Germany to Italy...

 

[Bill Williams]

Check Massei. He's the one that said DNA can't be dated IIRC

On page 9 of Massei's motivation, he said that the defence raised the issue of the non-testing of the stain on Dec 9, 2009. This was the pillowcase stain which was, "spermatic in nature" (Massei's words). Apparently the two judges, without the popular judges, retired to rule on the raising of this issue so late in the trial. The two judges ruled against the defence's requst.

On page 383, Massei writes the reason why:

even if a genetic
investigation established the spermatic nature of these stains, such an investigation,
as a rule, would not allow these stains to be dated and, in particular, it would not be
possible to establish that they had been deposited on the night on which Meredith
was killed. It having furthermore been established that Meredith had an active
sexual life and at times had intercourse in her own room (cf. on this point the
statements of her boyfriend Giacomo Silenzi) such an investigation, besides not
being of a strictly necessary nature due to the impossibility of dating [i.e.
establishing the date] (cf. what was elucidated on this aspect by the genetic experts),
might also yield an entirely irrelevant outcome even for establishing the spermatic
nature of those very stains and seems to be, therefore, a purely explorative activity,
[which] is not permitted at this stage of the proceedings because it is lacking in the
requirement for absolute necessity which was, on the contrary, requested.​

It seems that Massei was accusing the defence of asking his court to go on a wild-goose chase. By determining the owner of a presumed spermatic substance. On a pillow that the victim owned. Found under her hips. From a presumed sexual assault.

Yet DNA of Amanda Knox's found in the cottage in which she lived (particularly the bathroom she regularly used) is dateable to the night of the murder to the exclusion of all other times/dates.

Is it any wonder that the Massei court (not to mention the Nencini court) was overturned and the pair were exonerated?

 

[Kauffer]

Kauffer, you seem to know a lot about this. Would you care to elaborate?

I did some reading around the subject of sex games, which led me to rule out the possibility of such games having taken place as a precursor to the death of Meredith Kercher.

 

[JREF2010]

On page 9 of Massei's motivation, he said that the defence raised the issue of the non-testing of the stain on Dec 9, 2009. This was the pillowcase stain which was, "spermatic in nature" (Massei's words). Apparently the two judges, without the popular judges, retired to rule on the raising of this issue so late in the trial. The two judges ruled against the defence's requst.

On page 383, Massei writes the reason why:

​

It seems that Massei was accusing the defence of asking his court to go on a wild-goose chase. By determining the owner of a presumed spermatic substance. On a pillow that the victim owned. Found under her hips. From a presumed sexual assault.

Yet DNA of Amanda Knox's found in the cottage in which she lived (particularly the bathroom she regularly used) is dateable to the night of the murder to the exclusion of all other times/dates.

Is it any wonder that the Massei court (not to mention the Nencini court) was overturned and the pair were exonerated?

Thats really another missed opportunity to get to the truth, or at least wash away speculation.

If it wasnt Rudys and wasnt Giacomo's...then there was someone with Rudy because Meredith wasnt seeing anyone else. She was sexually active in a monogamous way.

What if it was the guy who bumped into Alessandras boyfriend?
Before Rudy fled?..I'm open to this.

To not test it and realize a shoe print was in it, seems it was most likely from the night of the murder.

But then again, this trial and court..prosecution never seemed to be about finding the truth, it was more about face saving for the Migninni team and brotherhood of Migninni types.

 

[JREF2010]

Hi,
Here's 1 translation of Rudy's German prison Diary:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Rudy_Guede's_Prison_Diary_(Translated)

It would be great to read of Rudy's Interrogation by German Police.
Candace Dempsey wrote some info of about this years ago,
it's been all the info that I'd ever read of before.

Go about halfway down the linked page of hers and have a read of this:
Rudy Guede, statement to German authorities, Koblenz, Nov. 21, 2007.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/04/28/rudy-guede-amanda-knox-was-not-there/



It would also be great to read that looong 1st Interrogation that Rudy Guede had with PM Mignini
on Dec. 7, 2007 after being extradited from Germany to Italy...

I hadnt read that for a long time, this was interesting-
Rudy-
When we entered the house, Meredith went into her room, opened a drawer near her bed, and discovered that her money was missing. Then she went into Amanda’s room to look for it. Amanda was not in the house.

He probably had a knife to her neck during this search for money, why would she be doing this on his "date" with her?

 

[davefoc]

On page 9 of Massei's motivation, he said that the defence raised the issue of the non-testing of the stain on Dec 9, 2009. This was the pillowcase stain which was, "spermatic in nature" (Massei's words). Apparently the two judges, without the popular judges, retired to rule on the raising of this issue so late in the trial. The two judges ruled against the defence's requst.

On page 383, Massei writes the reason why:
It seems that Massei was accusing the defence of asking his court to go on a wild-goose chase. By determining the owner of a presumed spermatic substance. On a pillow that the victim owned. Found under her hips. From a presumed sexual assault.

Yet DNA of Amanda Knox's found in the cottage in which she lived (particularly the bathroom she regularly used) is dateable to the night of the murder to the exclusion of all other times/dates.

Is it any wonder that the Massei court (not to mention the Nencini court) was overturned and the pair were exonerated?

Not testing the presumed semen stain, is a very strange aspect of this whole case. It is one the weird loose ends that isn't resolvable without some inside information. The judge's explanation, is of course, on its face absurd. But what to make of it? Moore would see it as more evidence of his fraudulent prosecution theory. But where does this conspiracy end? Does it need to include the judges and the prosecutors that made this stupid argument? Are they just part of the good old boy network that supports the prosecutor even if it's obvious that he's gone a little nuts? My uninformed guess is that's what it was.

 

[carbonjam72]

On page 9 of Massei's motivation, he said that the defence raised the issue of the non-testing of the stain on Dec 9, 2009. This was the pillowcase stain which was, "spermatic in nature" (Massei's words). Apparently the two judges, without the popular judges, retired to rule on the raising of this issue so late in the trial. The two judges ruled against the defence's requst.

On page 383, Massei writes the reason why:

Quote:
even if a genetic
investigation established the spermatic nature of these stains, such an investigation,
as a rule, would not allow these stains to be dated and, in particular, it would not be
possible to establish that they had been deposited on the night on which Meredith
was killed. It having furthermore been established that Meredith had an active
sexual life and at times had intercourse in her own room (cf. on this point the
statements of her boyfriend Giacomo Silenzi) such an investigation, besides not
being of a strictly necessary nature due to the impossibility of dating [i.e.
establishing the date] (cf. what was elucidated on this aspect by the genetic experts),
might also yield an entirely irrelevant outcome even for establishing the spermatic nature of those very stains and seems to be, therefore, a purely explorative activity, [which] is not permitted at this stage of the proceedings because it is lacking in the requirement for absolute necessity which was, on the contrary, requested.

​

It seems that Massei was accusing the defence of asking his court to go on a wild-goose chase. By determining the owner of a presumed spermatic substance. On a pillow that the victim owned. Found under her hips. From a presumed sexual assault.

Yet DNA of Amanda Knox's found in the cottage in which she lived (particularly the bathroom she regularly used) is dateable to the night of the murder to the exclusion of all other times/dates.

Is it any wonder that the Massei court (not to mention the Nencini court) was overturned and the pair were exonerated?

Hey Bill, thanks fort fishing this out.

First question I have, is whether Massei is referring to the semen stain at the edge of the pillow case, or the one showing Rudy stepped in wet sperm?

My guess is Massei is referring to the (presumed) sperm stain on the pillow case edge, since the one that's was stepped in while wet can be dated to the crime.

My reading of Massei here, and the judges, is that they "already know" Knox and Sollecito are guilty, so they don't need more evidence to convict. And since a plausible explanation that the sperm could have been deposited at an earlier time can't in their minds be refuted, there's no reason to test the stain, because it might be confusing to the lay judges and give the defendants an unfair chance to evade justice by introducing an element of doubt.

I don't believe this is a conscious bias, but I do believe it is a bias for guilt. The judges believe the defendants are guilty, and intend to give them a fair process, before judging them guilty. But the judges know they will convict before the trial even starts, its just a process of making sure that no contrary evidence to guilt is allowed into the process, so as to make the conviction clean and unambiguous to the lay jurors.

That's why the job of prosecutor should be separated from investigator, and why this trial in particular should have been moved far, far away from Perugia. It was only when an unbiased judge was brought in, that the evidence in the case was actually examined, and it then fell apart.

The point I'm trying to make, if it isn't clear yet, is that the judges, Massei in this case, don't have to actively collude with the prosecution to help railroad two innocent defendants, as happened here. All the judges need to do, is not recognize their bias, and suppress the defendants ability to have a defense, leaving only the prosecution to put forward a case.

So BIG conspiracy isn't necessary. TINY conspiracy is probably necessary to some degree. The truth is, the whole rotten police department all belongs in jail, including the phony lab techs and bogus experts that lied to support the prosecution's case.

 

[Numbers]

Rudy's "Minor" Crime of Trespassing in the Nursery School

Italian CP (Criminal Code) on Trespassing (but does it only apply to places of residence?)

Art. 614.
Trespassing.

Anyone who is introduced in the home of others, or in another private house, or memberships of them, against the express or implied will of whoever has the right to exclude, that there is introduced clandestinely or deception, shall be punished with imprisonment from six months to three years. (1)
The same punishment those who are staying in those places against the express wishes of those who have the right to exclude, or will you hold clandestinely or deceitfully.
The crime is punishable on complaint of the victim.
The penalty is one to five years and is automatically prosecuted if the crime is committed with violence against property or people, or if the offender is clearly armed.

Source: http://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2014/10/28/dei-delitti-contro-la-persona
Google translated

 

[Bill Williams]

Hey Bill, thanks fort fishing this out.

First question I have, is whether Massei is referring to the semen stain at the edge of the pillow case, or the one showing Rudy stepped in wet sperm?

My guess is Massei is referring to the (presumed) sperm stain on the pillow case edge, since the one that's was stepped in while wet can be dated to the crime.

My reading of Massei here, and the judges, is that they "already know" Knox and Sollecito are guilty, so they don't need more evidence to convict. And since a plausible explanation that the sperm could have been deposited at an earlier time can't in their minds be refuted, there's no reason to test the stain, because it might be confusing to the lay judges and give the defendants an unfair chance to evade justice by introducing an element of doubt.

I don't believe this is a conscious bias, but I do believe it is a bias for guilt. The judges believe the defendants are guilty, and intend to give them a fair process, before judging them guilty. But the judges know they will convict before the trial even starts, its just a process of making sure that no contrary evidence to guilt is allowed into the process, so as to make the conviction clean and unambiguous to the lay jurors.

That's why the job of prosecutor should be separated from investigator, and why this trial in particular should have been moved far, far away from Perugia. It was only when an unbiased judge was brought in, that the evidence in the case was actually examined, and it then fell apart.
The point I'm trying to make, if it isn't clear yet, is that the judges, Massei in this case, don't have to actively collude with the prosecution to help railroad two innocent defendants, as happened here. All the judges need to do, is not recognize their bias, and suppress the defendants ability to have a defense, leaving only the prosecution to put forward a case.

So BIG conspiracy isn't necessary. TINY conspiracy is probably necessary to some degree. The truth is, the whole rotten police department all belongs in jail, including the phony lab techs and bogus experts that lied to support the prosecution's case.

This does not explain Nencini and his partner-judge, or the Florence popular judges. Nencini did not even follow the dictates of the 2013 ISC reversal of the acquittals. All three of the outstanding issues the 2013 ISC said needed referral back to the lower court went the defences' way - Nencini even invented out of whole cloth things which were not put to the court by Crini, the new prosecutor.

How do you explain the Nencini court? Nencini was willing to send the kids to prison for a quarter century on Rudy Guede's testimony, and no one else's. Rudy is the sole source of the "they filled over the rent money", and in that same story Rudy said it was Meredith who let him in, and that the two of them had had consensual sex.

Despite how Machiavelli defended Nencini's critique of Conti/Vecchiotti (over against favouring Stefanoni), Nencini exhibited a particular brain-freeze over the DNA discussion - giving what can only be said to be a suspect-centric evaluation, and waving away contamination with the flick of a hand.....

How do you explain Nencini?

 

[carbonjam72]

This does not explain Nencini and his partner-judge, or the Florence popular judges. Nencini did not even follow the dictates of the 2013 ISC reversal of the acquittals. All three of the outstanding issues the 2013 ISC said needed referral back to the lower court went the defences' way - Nencini even invented out of whole cloth things which were not put to the court by Crini, the new prosecutor.

How do you explain the Nencini court? Nencini was willing to send the kids to prison for a quarter century on Rudy Guede's testimony, and no one else's. Rudy is the sole source of the "they filled over the rent money", and in that same story Rudy said it was Meredith who let him in, and that the two of them had had consensual sex.

Despite how Machiavelli defended Nencini's critique of Conti/Vecchiotti (over against favouring Stefanoni), Nencini exhibited a particular brain-freeze over the DNA discussion - giving what can only be said to be a suspect-centric evaluation, and waving away contamination with the flick of a hand.....

How do you explain Nencini?

For one thing, I think there is a dividing line beginning with Hellman, and the process leading up to Hellman.

I think the Nencini trial, including the ISC overturning Hellman is harder to read, because I believe the recognition of the Hellman acquittal was, as Judge Hellman stated, doomed to be overturned once politicians loyal to Burlesconi tried to use the Hellman acquittal as the basis for a politically motivated investigation against the prosecutors and judges, and really the judiciary as a whole - with whom Burlesconi was then at war for personal survival.

Sorry for the run on sentence.

The point is, I don't believe the ISC 2013 reversal of Hellman and Nencini's show trial were authentic and legit.

I think the early judges were biased, and largely unknowingly biased. I think ISC in 2013 and Nencini are something different, and I'm not sure what that is.

Nencini's motivation was so bad, it almost seems deliberately bad. As you point out, the only support for Nencini's motivation for the cirme, comes from only Rudy Guede, who was never subjected to cross examination - a clear violation of Italian constitutional law, IIUC.

I object to the persistent belief that the judicial process was fair, and they just made "mistakes". The process wasn't fair and above board, imo. The question is, to what degree was their bias unconscious versus intentionally dishonest?

You see the Italian judicial playing field as smooth and uniform. I think its about 'as straight as a slinky'.

 

[carbonjam72]

Dear Judge Maresca, may we please see your motivation report? Sincerely, CJ72

 

[Bill Williams]

Dear Judge Maresca, may we please see your motivation report? Sincerely, CJ72

MarAsca!

 

[Numbers]

Looking through the CP for the crime of Trespassing, I found two others of interest:

CP Art. 606.
Illegal arrest.

A public official who proceeds to an arrest, abuse of power inherent to his duties, shall be punished with imprisonment up to three years.

CP Art. 605.
Kidnapping

Anyone who deprives anybody of personal liberty shall be punished with imprisonment from six months to eight years.
The penalty is imprisonment from one to ten years, if the offense is committed:
1) to the detriment of an ascendant, a descendant or the spouse;
2) by a public official, with abuse of power inherent to its functions....

Source: http://www.altalex.com/documents/new...tro-la-persona
Google translated