• 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.
Is there documentation for this, and if so, how reliable is the documentation?

I ask because I have read that the police concluded that the "hairs" were really fibers from a fabric, or that there really were no such hairs or fibers at all. Of course, the Italian police are not the most reliable when it comes to forensics, as shown in this case.


I posted this info back on June 12th here. As for reliability, it comes from a 'Guilter' website that has documented a slideshow presentation by Stefanoni during the course of the 1st trial, but Amanda's side also knew they had found an African man's hairs in Meredith's bedroom, as proved by the fact that "African hairs" were mentioned in Judge Heavey's letter to Italian officials way back when Amanda was still in custody there.

Why this crucial information wasn't trumpeted about more amazes me since it fully explains why the police had immediately locked in on African suspects within days of the murder (and then quickly shifting from Lumumba to Guede), as was reported in both the UK and Italian media.

Here's my re-post from June 12th (I can now post the full URL):

The only list of crime-scene hairs I know of is found on a 'Guilter' website –– see below, and since I can’t post URLs yet, add the “http” part of the URL yourself.

As with DNA, hair can be inadvertently transferred from one place to another.

That said, 5 African hairs consistent with Guede were found in Meredith's bedroom (too many to be inadvertently transferred there), which explains why the police had focused in on an African suspect early on in this case, and since Lumumba was the only African man the police knew Amanda had a relationship with, that explains how Lumumba's name came up in the wee hours of November 6th, 2007:

Hairs

(Dr. Stefanoni Genetic Test, SAL report, Dr. Stefanoni slide presentation):

1. Of the over 480 tests prepared on samples, 93 of these constituted hairs or fibers. 86 were human hairs of varying length, in varying colors. The most significant colors noted were black, blonde, chestnut, light chestnut and red chestnut.
[ ]

4. 7 hairs were black in color. 6 of these were 4 cm long or less, and so likely Guede’s hair. 4 of these were on the duvet and 1 was on the mattress cover, both in Ms. Kercher’s room. 1 was also on a sponge at Sollecito’s apartment.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Evidence_List#Hairs
 
"Suspicious behavior" is an interesting concept. But what is the definition? It does not seem to be amenable to an "objective" consideration. If you look at the ECHR definition based on their case-law, "reasonable suspicion" which is to be grounds for arrest is based on what an "objective observer" would perceive. This of course shifts the issue to what the definition of "objective observer" might be.

Here is a relevant definition of "objective":

3
a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>
b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

I think the problem with "suspicious behavior" as allegedly used by the Italian police as an indicator is that it does not meet the test of objectivity, as presented in the above definition. And in fact, if one examines the grounds alleged for arrest in the arrest warrant, the grounds relied on apparently objective facts, such as statements by Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. But these statements were false and obtained under police methods that were procedurally illegal in Italy, and at least in Knox's case, were in violation of Italian criminal law. So the "suspicious behavior" was never used directly as grounds for arrest, because the police and prosecutor knew what they called "suspicious behavior" did not meet the required objectiveness test. That is why they went on to break the law to get false but seemingly objective evidence as grounds for the arrest. But this was done through official misconduct, and that misconduct was in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights.

If the police and/or had thought the "suspicious behavior" was really evidence that Knox or Sollecitio had committed a crime, they would have followed Italian legal procedures and provided legal counsel and a fair interpreter to Knox in her interrogation. Instead, they did everything necessary with this individual to induce a false statement. She told them the truth about the text messages with Lumumba when they first asked, but they broke her resistance by their methods. This is a violation of the Convention. And it doesn't matter to the eventual ECHR judgment in this case how often Italian police have followed this pattern of unfair behavior that violates the Convention.

The interrogation of Amanda began before 11 pm. For more than two hours Amanda told the police repeatedly that she was at Raffaele's, not at her house the night of the crime. Police interpreter Anna Donnino arrived about 1 am. She testified that she served as a "mediator" and used a story about being traunatized after a skiing accident to get Amanda to believe that she also was traumatized and did not remember being at her house when she was there. Getting Amanda to think that her momory was wrong was the necessary step to induce Amanda to believe (incorrectly) that she was at her house that evening as the police claimed. Amanda was able to hold to the truth under intense and hostile police interrogation for over two hours. Strong girl, Amanda.
 
You could email him and I'm sure he will assure you and promise the proof later.

Which reminds me that another poster promised us the recordings of Amanda's interrogation would be revealed "sooner than later". Is it later yet?

I've never believed that. This isn't Nixon. I also don't believe that any of the detectives, lab people or Mignini will face any consequences from any wrongdoing from this case.
 
I agree, but they couldn't get the idea of a staged burglary out of their minds.

But did the police and prosecution non-objective concept of a staged burglary lead to suspicion of Amanda, or did suspicion of those close to the victim (and thus convenient) lead to an unshakable and non-objective belief in a staged burglary and thus to suspicion of Amanda?
 
I have never seen any documentation about the hairs being curly. I have seen comments about a variety of fibres in different colours. There does not seem any documented formal forensic examination of the fibres documented. Formal forensic examination by microscope would be needed to conclude any fibres were human hair, what colour, and likely ethnicity. I have never seen more than comments based on naked eye appearance, which is not reliable for attribution.


The human body sheds around 100 hairs daily, so finding hairs at a crime scene is not that unusual, especially given the time Guede was in there, as well as what he was doing, such as a violent rape, and also going to the bathroom, and both of those activities could drop hairs which may have already been shed within his clothing.

African hairs are rather unique in appearance (I've had 2 Black roommates in my younger years), so the police would have known rather quickly they were dealing with an African perp, but without analysis they couldn't tie the hairs to a particular African perp, and whether they can even scientifically do that would depend upon how different their hairs were from one another.

In any event, Stefanoni's presentation was done later, so she had ample time to analyze the crime-scene hairs.

That Stefanoni claims to have found a hair consistent with Guede on a sponge in Raffaele's apartment is rather interesting, but considering the source, highly suspect. Even so, as with DNA, hairs can be innocently transferred from one place to another.

Raffaele's maid was from South America, and there's a lot of African blood in that gene pool. I've never seen a picture of his maid, but maybe? Or, maybe the police inadvertently transferred it there, or Stefanoni was lying about it?

Since they were falling all over themselves trying to tie Amanda & Raffaele to Guede, if the hair on Raffaele's sponge were a scientific match for Guede, then you'd think the prosecution would have used that, and if they had, that it would have been mentioned in a Motivation Report, but I've never seen that hair mentioned in one?
 
I posted this info back on June 12th here. As for reliability, it comes from a 'Guilter' website that has documented a slideshow presentation by Stefanoni during the course of the 1st trial, but Amanda's side also knew they had found an African man's hairs in Meredith's bedroom, as proved by the fact that "African hairs" were mentioned in Judge Heavey's letter to Italian officials way back when Amanda was still in custody there.

Why this crucial information wasn't trumpeted about more amazes me since it fully explains why the police had immediately locked in on African suspects within days of the murder (and then quickly shifting from Lumumba to Guede), as was reported in both the UK and Italian media.

Here's my re-post from June 12th (I can now post the full URL):

Ken Dine,

Thanks for the re-post.

Of course, the information provided by Stefanoni does not really claim that the hairs were certainly, or even with some probability, from an African person, rather "likely to be Guede's". Only the color is mentioned, and no forensic detail.

Perhaps the police assumed the hairs were from an African soon after they were found, without detailed forensic examination.
 
But did the police and prosecution non-objective concept of a staged burglary lead to suspicion of Amanda, or did suspicion of those close to the victim (and thus convenient) lead to an unshakable and non-objective belief in a staged burglary and thus to suspicion of Amanda?

Both and more, I think it was a cavalcade of things that got this farce rolling. I do think know that they looked at that wall and said "no way". I think little things added up. The big problem in my mind is why they didn't balance their suspicions with the absurdities of their case? My guess is that a moron with power got the police in Perugia to think his way. Or a couple of morons. And no one was willing to challenge them.
 
The human body sheds around 100 hairs daily, so finding hairs at a crime scene is not that unusual, especially given the time Guede was in there, as well as what he was doing, such as a violent rape, and also going to the bathroom, and both of those activities could drop hairs which may have already been shed within his clothing.

African hairs are rather unique in appearance (I've had 2 Black roommates in my younger years), so the police would have known rather quickly they were dealing with an African perp, but without analysis they couldn't tie the hairs to a particular African perp, and whether they can even scientifically do that would depend upon how different their hairs were from one another.

In any event, Stefanoni's presentation was done later, so she had ample time to analyze the crime-scene hairs.

That Stefanoni claims to have found a hair consistent with Guede on a sponge in Raffaele's apartment is rather interesting, but considering the source, highly suspect. Even so, as with DNA, hairs can be innocently transferred from one place to another.

Raffaele's maid was from South America, and there's a lot of African blood in that gene pool. I've never seen a picture of his maid, but maybe? Or, maybe the police inadvertently transferred it there, or Stefanoni was lying about it?

Since they were falling all over themselves trying to tie Amanda & Raffaele to Guede, if the hair on Raffaele's sponge were a scientific match for Guede, then you'd think the prosecution would have used that, and if they had, that it would have been mentioned in a Motivation Report, but I've never seen that hair mentioned in one?

Comparing the hair DNA results to available DNA regional databases can show the general or specific ethnic background. It could show if the hair is of West African or Central African origin. The Ivory Coast is in West Africa. Lubumba is from Zaire/Congo in Central Africa. 23andme.com, a DNA testing service does this. I am a blue-eyed Caucasian with light skin tone of English/Welsh/Irish/Germanic origin and learned that I am also 1/2 of one percent West African origin and 1/4 of one percent other non-specified sub-Sahara African origin. Also 6 percent Scandanavian, which I assume is from the Viking presence in Britain a thousand years ago.
 
Last edited:
Numbers do you have any ECHR examples on Perugian misconduct? Or any cases about Italians not declaring someone a suspect properly?

It would seem that from your case examples the Italian system would be a best customer for ECHR and not just for length of process, which IIRC was their number one sin.


I've read before that Italy is indeed the ECHR's best customer with Italy having the highest number of reversals of any other member state.

Italy is currently in the process of amending their civil codes, which they were forced to do since their lousy legal system is scaring away foreign investors.

Italy should also do their criminal codes, but even if they do, the Italian judiciary may just ignore the changes, much as they did after previous amendments to their codes.

What a mess!
 
But did the police and prosecution non-objective concept of a staged burglary lead to suspicion of Amanda, or did suspicion of those close to the victim (and thus convenient) lead to an unshakable and non-objective belief in a staged burglary and thus to suspicion of Amanda?

They were confounded by their belief in the burglary first and it drove them to impossible further conclusions. It just couldn't be the simple case it was because if it.

The conclusion about the burglary combined with the later car park kiss and let's not wait for the forensics kind of approach. It's astonishing to me. Even now.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm curious who Giobbi gave the instructions to. Does anyone know the answer to that?

Detective No Name.

I think it is likely that Giobbi DID give that order (to call them both in), and the other cops ignored him, or just didn't bother to be specific when they called Raff. If they preferred not to have Amanda around when they were putting the screws to Raff, they could always say that Amanda didn't show, or that they forgot, if Giobbi made any fuss later. But I don't think it mattered that much, they may also have assumed Amanda was coming, or not. If it was a big deal to them to have only Raff come, they could easily have told him, "WE ONLY WANT YOU! DON'T BRING HER WITH YOU".

Note: Yes, I know I am speculating, and am making that clear. I just think the above seems most likely. Again, it really doesn't affect the outcome much at all. The key is not who was called, or who went of their free will, but how the cops treated them once they were there, what resources the cops had lined up to handle the interrogations, etc.
 
They were confounded by their belief in the burglary first and it drove them to impossible further conclusions. It just couldn't be the simple case it was because if it.

The conclusion about the burglary combined with the later car park kiss and let's not wait for the forensics kind of approach. It's astonishing to me. Even now.

The possibility that the police and prosecutor did believe the burglary was staged and that led to the course of events is could be the reality.

But the other possibility is that the police and prosecutor were corrupt and desiring of the very quickest resolution of the crime for several reasons (not all the same for each individual), such as satisfying political pressure for a quick resolution, gaining professional recognition, misogyny, and obsessions with sexual and "satanic" rituals.

In the latter possibility, the need to attribute the crime to a "convenient suspect", one close to Meredith, would suggest to the police and prosecutor to maintain that the break-in and burglary were staged.
 
I think it is likely that Giobbi DID give that order (to call them both in), and the other cops ignored him, or just didn't bother to be specific when they called Raff. If they preferred not to have Amanda around when they were putting the screws to Raff, they could always say that Amanda didn't show, or that they forgot, if Giobbi made any fuss later. But I don't think it mattered that much, they may also have assumed Amanda was coming, or not. If it was a big deal to them to have only Raff come, they could easily have told him, "WE ONLY WANT YOU! DON'T BRING HER WITH YOU".

Note: Yes, I know I am speculating, and am making that clear. I just think the above seems most likely. Again, it really doesn't affect the outcome much at all. The key is not who was called, or who went of their free will, but how the cops treated them once they were there, what resources the cops had lined up to handle the interrogations, etc.

Greetings ya'll,
Have you ever gone to a police station, with a friend, to report a crime?
I have, as I used to run a well known retail store, an old surfshop.
The cops sometimes make you wait for quite a while, if it is not that important.

When the time came to finally speak with a police officer,
they asked me about this and that. They did not ask my friend any questions.


If the cops only wanted to interrogate Raffaele Sollecito,
they would have only scolded Amanda Knox for mis-behaving,
err make that doin' a few yoga stretches in the waiting area.

Amanda Knox had been questioned many times by now.
Heck, she'd even been led back inside her apartment where her room mate and friend was raped and murdered.

They would not sat have next to her and asked her more questions and led her into a,
what was it, a warmer room, before her Mommy was due to arrive the next day.

Of course,
your personal experiences may differ...
RW
 
Last edited:
I agree that Amanda's and Raf's innocence doesn't mean they were incapable of suspicious behavior. At the same time I don't believe that just because investigators say something was suspicious then it necessarily was truly suspicious.

When I first starting reading internet fora regarding this case, I read that Raf had called 112 after the arrival of the Postal Police. Despite being convinced he was innocent, I thought that was highly suspicious behavior on his part. Then I read in his report that even Massei didn't believe that claim. In his report, Hellman then completely demolished the idea. [Did Nencini really bring this idea back up having heard no evidence to support the claim? Did he even read the Hellman report?]. Now, the fact that the police/prosecutor have made the claim makes me highly suspicious of their abilities and integrity.

Regarding Raf knowing nothing was missing, usually such statements are suspicious for one of two reasons. Either the statement is true and reveals knowledge that only a guilty part should know or the statement is clearly a lie told to divert the investigator's attention. In my opinion, Raf's statement that nothing was missing doesn't clearly fit into either of those categories. First of all it wasn't true and he would know that it wasn't true if he were guilty. Meredith's phones were in fact missing. From a guilt perspective I guess you could claim that he lied to cover up the fact that he knew something was missing from inside Meredith's locked room. BUT, both Amanda and Raf had spent a considerable amount of time in the apartment before placing the call. My understanding is not much was disturbed and to the extent Amanda had looked around and done an inventory nothing was in fact missing. What exactly is suspicious about stating that?

To whom and when do you believe that statement was suspicious? Who testified that it was suspicious? Was it suspicious to the operator who took the call at the time of the call?

Is there a tape of the call? Did Raf give a spontaneous statement or did he ask Amanda during the call? If so, can her response be heard? Did Raf definitively say nothing was missing or was it more of a not that we can tell? Did they discuss whether anything was missing before the call?

Given the fact that it is clear to me the police cannot be trusted, based on the claim of the timing of the 112 call, without further information about the exact nature of the statement I can't jump to the conclusion that it was suspicious.


I would add to your analysis the fact that Amanda spoke very poor Italian, and since Raffaele's English was better than her Italian, so they mostly spoke in English, but there are numerous confusions caused by Amanda and Raffaele's lack of perfect communication between each other.

E.g., on the way to the police station after Meredith's body was discovered, Amanda & Raffaele drove there with Filomena and her B/F, who had kicked in the door and saw Meredith's foot sticking out from under the duvet.

On the way to the police station the B/F (Marco, or was it Luca?) was telling Raffaele what he had seen in rapid Italian that Amanda couldn't follow, so Raffaele interpreted the conversation for Amanda, which is how Amanda came under the impression that Meredith had been stuffed into her closet with only her foot sticking out, when they apparently had said Meredith was found in front of the closet with her foot sticking out from under the duvet.

Amanda's skewed recounting of the crime scene to the English girls should have been exculpatory evidence since she clearly had never seen the crime scene, but instead Mignini claimed Amanda knew about the crime scene since she had seen it before the door was kicked in. Clearly, Amanda's only knowledge was 3rd-hand thru Raffaele, and Raffaele had used broken English, at that.

In the same vein, Raffaele wouldn't know if anything had been stolen or not, so after seeing Filomena's TV and laptop still there, Amanda likely said something to the effect that "nothing appears to have been taken."

Raffaele likely innocently interpreted "nothing appears to have been taken to "nothing was taken."

As far as I know, Amanda's voice wasn't heard in that recording, perhaps because she told it to Raffaele before he made the call?

Amanda had her own rent money in a drawer in her bedroom, and due to all the confusion, Amanda never checked to see if her own rent money was still there. That would be interesting to know?

If the cops were honest, then Amanda's rent money (if still there) would have been collected and logged, but I've never seen any mention of Amanda's rent money having been found after the murder?
 
Is it true - is there evidence - that the police installed a listening device in Patric's bar before they elicited from Amanda with whom she exchanged the "see you later" text? If so, that proves they were looking at him as the killer before the midnight interrogation.

I've never heard before about any bug placed in Lumumba's bar?

The police did wire the waiting area in their police station hoping Amanda & Raffaele would say something incriminating while waiting to be interrogated. They also wired their cells.

But, of course, the police failed to record their late-night interrogations in the wee-hours of Nov 6th (ya, RIGHT!)

It's my understanding that Mignini had obtained a court order to tap their phones several days after the murder, so the police likely had already reviewed the text messages between Amanda and Lumumba days before the Nov 6th interrogation. The police were also observing them when Amanda bumped into Lumumba on Nov 5th when they stopped to chat.

Couple all that with the African hairs found in Meredith's bedroom, and CASE CLOSED!
 
I think it is likely that Giobbi DID give that order (to call them both in), and the other cops ignored him, or just didn't bother to be specific when they called Raff. If they preferred not to have Amanda around when they were putting the screws to Raff, they could always say that Amanda didn't show, or that they forgot, if Giobbi made any fuss later. But I don't think it mattered that much, they may also have assumed Amanda was coming, or not. If it was a big deal to them to have only Raff come, they could easily have told him, "WE ONLY WANT YOU! DON'T BRING HER WITH YOU".

Note: Yes, I know I am speculating, and am making that clear. I just think the above seems most likely. Again, it really doesn't affect the outcome much at all. The key is not who was called, or who went of their free will, but how the cops treated them once they were there, what resources the cops had lined up to handle the interrogations, etc.

Well it doesn't matter unless you are one that believes everything was set up from day one to get the pretty American girl as the most convenient victim person to frame, because they always just frame someone for murder.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest they were ordered to call in Amanda except Mr. Puffery's own statement made at the same time as being to suss out the kids from observation.

The police at the station that chided her for coming in were just acting, I suppose all part of the grand plan to frame the kids. :rolleyes:
 
Greetings ya'll,
Have you ever gone to a police station, with a friend, to report a crime?
I have, as I used to run a well known retail store, an old surfshop.
The cops sometimes make you wait for quite a while, if it is not that important.

When the time came to finally speak with a police officer,
they asked me about this and that. They did not ask my friend any questions.


If the cops only wanted to interrogate Raffaele Sollecito,
they would have only scolded Amanda Knox for mis-behaving,
err make that doin' a few yoga stretches in the waiting area.

Amanda Knox had been questioned many times by now.
Heck, she'd even been led back inside her apartment where her room mate and friend was raped and murdered.

They would not sat have next to her and asked her more questions and led her into a,
what was it, a warmer room, before her Mommy was due to arrive the next day.

Of course,
your personal experiences may differ...
RW

Agree, but that was not my point. They definitely wanted to question Amanda, but did they want to question her right when Raffaele went in, or later, after they had put the screws to him? And did they want her out in the hall, or did they want her away from the questura, to go get her later? And does it matter, since almost everyone here agrees they wanted to talk to her? I don't think it matters. And I don't the cops thought it mattered much either.
 
Hmmm. You might think so, but if it were you there saying, "ta da!!", then having the temerity to eat pizza for dinner, Giobbi might have trumped up a case against you!!

I can just see the headlines now. "Inside the crazed fantasies of "Foxy Vixy"! The Daily Mail would have a field day! :D

How could he "trump up a charge"? I would most certainly have an alibi.
 
Well it doesn't matter unless you are one that believes everything was set up from day one to get the pretty American girl as the most convenient victim person to frame, because they always just frame someone for murder.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest they were ordered to call in Amanda except Mr. Puffery's own statement made at the same time as being to suss out the kids from observation.

The police at the station that chided her for coming in were just acting, I suppose all part of the grand plan to frame the kids. :rolleyes:

Ah, I see your point. Since I have never ascribed to the "they set out to frame an American" angle, that must be why I don't think it matters. The discussion I have always seen is from PG folks, trying to claim that Amanda was not coerced or part of any plan to put undue pressure on her from the cops, and their proof is that "Amanda went in of her own free will, she was not called". They subsequently try to use this as indicating that, not only did Amanda not get called in, but she made a point of going in with Raff, so she could try to pin the murder on Lumumba.

All of that is strange reasoning, IMO. I think the cops called Raff, but it is clear they suspected Amanda at that point, and could have gone to get her whenever they wanted. She clearly did not go in expecting the end result, and was so naive she had no clue they suspected her, or Raff, of anything.
 
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