Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
The idea police suppressed DNA they knew to be Rudy's is so crazy bonkers, I wonder if we are on the same planet?
Nonsense. This whole sorry mess is a case of the police suppressing EVERYTHING that would exonerate the American witch and everyone knows it: Harry Potter book, DNA data, trashed computers, the list is practically endless.
Even the victims family lawyer opposed testing of semen because it would show Rudy.
I do not agree that it shows another perp: I think it would say Rudy.
Regardless of what others say: A jury would have a hard time ignoring Rudy semen below the victim and agree to blame the whole thing on others.
Another thing: You calling my ideas "crazy bonkers" and saying I must be from another planet is the pot calling the kettle black, since virtually every post you make is crazy unsupported or already crazy proven false 100 times on this very forum.
 
The idea police suppressed DNA they knew to be Rudy's is so crazy bonkers, I wonder if we are on the same planet?

The idea that the police wouldn't test a purported semen stain underneath a stripped naked murdered woman because "it can't be dated" is so crazy bonkers I wonder if we are on the same planet. And yet here we are.
 
Rudi was adamant that he didn't leave any "sperm" behind in his Skype convo. We have seen that he has the ability to make his stories fit the basic facts. Had he ejaculated why wouldn't he have told a tale to cover that fact? If you don't remember it was in the press that the PLE had found it.

I don't see how that stain would prove Meredith was dying when he ejaculated and AFAIK no sign of penile rape was found anyway.

Regardless I don't see the semen even if Rudi's proving a single perp.

I think they tested it and it was from the real accomplice.
Grinder,
I agree that Rudy was GOOD liar, but not that he was a PERFECT liar.
What does "no sign of penile rape" mean? can this be proven? I mean can they really prove what part of Rudy was in the victim? How do they do that? I really did not know that was possible. Did stef and mag test rudys pp for traces of victim dna?
If you leave dna behind at a crime scene it is one thing, but if you leave semen behind at a rape murder under the victims hips it is another: I just see his semen as an elephant on the coffee table that is just impossible for a jury to ignore.
How could Nencini make Amanda the perp if the rudy dna was on semen at the scene and the rudy testimony have been shown to be unreliable.
"Real accomplice"? Maybe those that the ISC identified in the Rudy motivation?
 
The idea police suppressed DNA they knew to be Rudy's is so crazy bonkers, I wonder if we are on the same planet?

But they did suppress such evidence. Before Judge Matteni, they claimed that Lumumba raped and murdered Kercher. Yet Lumumba was not released until 20th November. Before the Matteini hearing, DNA results proved Lumumba and indeed Raffaele had nothing to do with the sexual assault. Yet this evidence was witheld from the defence. The claims made before the early pre trial courts by the prosecution amount to perjury.

The record of the massive suppression of evidence in this case is here:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/
 
It's a good point.

The thing is that whilst it's good you accept this, it is not good that you cannot accept that there were enormous discovery violations in this case including the witholding of the EDFs, which the entire forensic science community regards as essential to the verification of results. The prosecution in this case effectively told the defence and the courts - "We will not allow you to verify our declared results".
 
No,I was not outraged by the crime. I was deeply saddened by the fate of those passengers, especially when the brother of one of them wrote a book describing how he came to Scotland wandering around Lockerbie trying to make sense of it.

I was all for Megrahi's innocence and for his pardon.

Still alive years later, I realised he'd fooled us all.

I just volunteered!
The Oggi article was apparently published June 4, 2014.

From a post by MichaelB, June 5, 2014

Summary: The investigators didn't find anything relevant because they stated that the people that appeared in the video were not recognizable, whereas the article says there are some pictures that are very clear. Between 21 and 22 hours it captures 37 people, and all those captured between 21:31 and 21:52 all do the same thing once they go past the barrier – they stop and look to their left towards the entrance to the car park, i.e. towards Meredith’s house. There is a family of father, mother and two children. They stop, the mother looks to the left, then one of the girls, then both girls. They seem to discuss something. In the end, they go away. The couple that passed just before them had done the same thing. What got their attention? What did they see or hear? Why were they never questioned?


Oggi Original Article:
http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/...108_653088601411224_7354278274572477096_o.jpg


From another post of MichaelB:
Oggi article translation.

Perugia. Does the truth lie in this forgotten video?

There are 2,068 registered files the evening of the murder and they have never been analysed in depth. In one there is a worrying finding. It has a resounding similarity.

By Giangavino Sulas

In the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher there is a DVD, which till now has inexplicably been ignored. It contains 2,068 files made the night of 1st November 2007 by the surveillance telecamera, placed at the entrance to the Sant’Antonio carpark in Perugia. It was seized by the flying squad and consigned to the Scientific Police for analysis of the recorded images for the hours preceeding and following the murder. This telecamera in fact not only captures the entrance to the parking lot, but also the entrance gate to the house in via Della Pergola from across the road. Having finished its work, the Scientific Police, in the account given to the Prosecutor, did not indicate anything relevant, on account of the poor quality of the images and the difficulty in identifying the people taken. And yet there are worrying images taken a little before 10pm, which were missed by the eyes of the enquirers. Very sharp images, among which not only are the people recognisable and potentially identifiable, but all show the same strange behaviour. Between 21.00 and 22.00, the telecamera recorded the entry into the car park of 37 people. All those captured between 21.31 and 21.52 passing the entrance barrier show the same reaction; they stop to look to the left, towards the entrance of the carpark, in other words towards the entrance to Meredith’s house. In several images we see a small family, consisting of father, mother, and two children stop; first the mother turns, then one of the children, then both together. They seem to be discussing something. Finally they go away. The couple who passed before them had the same reaction. What attracted their attention? What was happening during those minutes? Had they heard screams? Had they heard someone screaming for help? Had they seen someone running away? Why were these people not identified and questioned?

In the first trial process the hour of the murder was established based on the evidence of Nara Capezzali, an elderly lady who lived in via Della Pergola (actually strictly incorrect – overlooking it, DCA). She said that she went to sleep at around 21.00, and awoke, for physiological reasons (ie to get up for a pee!, DCA) at around 23.00. She said that on the night of 1st November 2007 when she awoke she heard a harrowing scream. The Perugia Court that condemned Raffaele and Amanda established that the emission of this scream could only have been because Meredith had been stabbed. Had the persons who entered the parking lot heard the same scream, but at a different time (ie from that stated by Capezzali)? Opening a new inquiry the investigators should be able to identify and question them.

Was this a dereliction of duty?
Then there is an image which could change the fate of Amanda. It shows a girl with a shoulder bag and a calm expression who has passed the entrance barrier of the carpark, from where one can pass to the old centre of the city. If this was really Amanda, this picture would become her alibi. It provides the time as indicated on the same telecamera; 20.53. In reality the exact time is different, 21.05, because the time recorded throughout is 12 minutes early. But the English student was murdered between 21.00 and 22.30. This was established in the last judgement of the Appeal Court of Assizes of Florence. Amanda therefore would have been going away from her house five minutes after Meredith’s return. For this reason she could not have taken part in the murder, cleaned herself up and washed, and got back to the Piazza Grimana, where then the tramp Antonio Curatolo saw her, in the company of Raffaele, from 21.30 to 23.30. In order to accuse her once more it would be necessary to change the time of the murder. And if the tramp Antonio Curatolo remains a credible witness, as the Court in Florence maintained, Meredith’s murder has to be moved forward by at least three hours. In fact it would be necessary to do the whole trial again. But in order to redo the trial the Prosecutor of Perugia would need first to open the investigation by reason of dereliction of duty by the Police, to explore why these other pictures, which we are publishing exclusively, were never shown to the examining magistrates by the Scientific Police, who had been given the task of examining the contents of that telecamera. Will they do this? The prosecutors Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comodi for now prefer silence.

If instead the girl caught on camera at 21.05 was not Amanda, this image would not invalidate her alibi: she and Raffaele have in fact always maintained that they never went out that night. They did not go to via Della Percola, nor to the centre or any local place. They watched a film on the computer, smoked a joint, made love and went to sleep. If they had gone into Meredith’s house they could not have avoided the telecamera of the Sant’Antonio carpark, just as didn’t Guede or for the same reason Meredith did not do.

‘Oggi’, in November 20121, already published an image from 21.00 on November 1st, in which one sees a girl with a white jacket like Meredith’s who is going towards via della Pergola. In two other cameras they caught at 19.40 and 20.10, a man who could have been Rudy Guede, leaving the carpark towards the house of the murder, which, by his own admission, he entered at 20.30, half an hour before Meredith arrived. How he entered the flat, the President of the Court of Florence did not know, and he has said that it is unimportant. The return of the English girl at 21.00 was confirmed by the testimony of her friend Sophie Purton who accompanied her for part of the way (home). Also in those videos there is no trace of Amanda and Raffaele
* * *

You folks had some great discussion on this new CCTV info,
here's a place to start refreshing anyone's memory:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=274219&highlight=oggi&page=214

We tend to assume the attack lasted minutes and was all over quickly. We don't know that. With 47 wounds including many cuts, the torture of Mez could have been lengthy. Even if those passersby stopped in their tracks because they heard a fracas from the cottage, does not necessarily mean that was the time of the murder.
 
The thing is that whilst it's good you accept this, it is not good that you cannot accept that there were enormous discovery violations in this case including the witholding of the EDFs, which the entire forensic science community regards as essential to the verification of results. The prosecution in this case effectively told the defence and the courts - "We will not allow you to verify our declared results".

You don't think it very strange the defense calculatingly kept quiet about this stain until too late, in case it turned out to be Raff's? (source: Raff himself).

Even if it was Raff, no doubt he'd argue he and Amanda were having sex all the time at the cottage.
 
Grinder,
I agree that Rudy was GOOD liar, but not that he was a PERFECT liar.
What does "no sign of penile rape" mean? can this be proven? I mean can they really prove what part of Rudy was in the victim? How do they do that? I really did not know that was possible. Did stef and mag test rudys pp for traces of victim dna?
If you leave dna behind at a crime scene it is one thing, but if you leave semen behind at a rape murder under the victims hips it is another: I just see his semen as an elephant on the coffee table that is just impossible for a jury to ignore.
How could Nencini make Amanda the perp if the rudy dna was on semen at the scene and the rudy testimony have been shown to be unreliable.
"Real accomplice"? Maybe those that the ISC identified in the Rudy motivation?

It was epithial (_sp?) cells they found. These can be identified as typical of skin cells shed from fingers. It's possible it was another part of Rudy's anatomy there, but I expect the penis was ruled out as it's a different type of skin (???)

When you say it was Rudy's semen - if that is what the substance is - you don't know it's his: it could be one of several persons. The stain might even be old.
 
Nara hearing leaves, seems like she's fantasizing a scene and then imagining what she's hearing.

Crazy elderly half-deaf lady, one more tragic tramp witness in Mignini's vagabond circus.

A relative of mine is almost profoundly deaf, yet she can still pick up hammering noises, for example. Nara had tinnitus; that is not the same thing as being deaf. It is an annoying ringing in the ears.

What's with the abuse of elderly half deaf people, many of our relatives are thus, and we should still treat them with respect.
 
You don't think it very strange the defense calculatingly kept quiet about this stain until too late, in case it turned out to be Raff's? (source: Raff himself).

Even if it was Raff, no doubt he'd argue he and Amanda were having sex all the time at the cottage.

I think it even more strange that police investigating a rape/murder scene do not think of testing a stain that could be any bodily fluid, thus capable of providing DNA evidence, found under the victim.

Was it also the defences fault that even before they were involved they didn't ask for the bra clasp and Meredith's bloody clothes to be stored and tested on the first day, instead of being moved around the room for weeks on end before being tested?
 
A relative of mine is almost profoundly deaf, yet she can still pick up hammering noises, for example. Nara had tinnitus; that is not the same thing as being deaf. It is an annoying ringing in the ears.

What's with the abuse of elderly half deaf people, many of our relatives are thus, and we should still treat them with respect.

Deaf people cannot "hear" hammering noises, they can sense the vibrations.

A bit different to being able to hear.
 
A scenario for Mach or Vixen.

Just to throw a wacky scenario out there.

Imagine you are a member of a jury.

You are told that a forensic scientist was tasked with looking for a particular substance at a crime scene.

There is a presumptive test to find if there is a possibility of the substance being present and a confirmatory test to conclude if the substance is actually present.

In court the scientist states that the substance they were looking for was present.

However, under further questioning it is revealed that the first test was positive but the confirmatory test was negative, but the scientist tried to conceal this evidence.

After finding out that the scientist lied in court would you consider their evidence as acceptable?
 
A relative of mine is almost profoundly deaf, yet she can still pick up hammering noises, for example. Nara had tinnitus; that is not the same thing as being deaf. It is an annoying ringing in the ears.

What's with the abuse of elderly half deaf people, many of our relatives are thus, and we should still treat them with respect.

Of course they deserve respect as people. Just not necessarily as witnesses in a murder trial, when they haven't actually seen anything, and don't report what they claim to have heard until well after the crime, and the vast media coverage.

Perhaps one day you'll find yourself in a courtroom, with the balance of your useful life hanging on the testimony of such a witness. I imagine the respect you'd have then.
 
Nonsense. This whole sorry mess is a case of the police suppressing EVERYTHING that would exonerate the American witch and everyone knows it: Harry Potter book, DNA data, trashed computers, the list is practically endless.
Even the victims family lawyer opposed testing of semen because it would show Rudy.
I do not agree that it shows another perp: I think it would say Rudy.Regardless of what others say: A jury would have a hard time ignoring Rudy semen below the victim and agree to blame the whole thing on others.
Another thing: You calling my ideas "crazy bonkers" and saying I must be from another planet is the pot calling the kettle black, since virtually every post you make is crazy unsupported or already crazy proven false 100 times on this very forum.

Yes, I agree.

One set of footprints in wet blood, which Rudy admits are his. And Rudy also stepped in a semen glob while it was wet, on a pillow placed under the victim to elevate her hips for better viewing.

These two facts alone allow us to conclude that the semen is Rudy's, imo.

For this semen to belong to someone else, that hypothetical male would have to have been shooting his gobbies from the hallway, and with quite good aim.

There is no good reason for the police not to have tested this semen stain. As Dr Peter Gill said in that radio interview; "I find that quite fantastic".

Also, let's note Stefanoni's failure to get a DNA reading off of the blood stain on Filomena's window. That's likely Rudy too, and also suppressed, let's face it.
 
But they did suppress such evidence. Before Judge Matteni, they claimed that Lumumba raped and murdered Kercher. Yet Lumumba was not released until 20th November. Before the Matteini hearing, DNA results proved Lumumba and indeed Raffaele had nothing to do with the sexual assault. Yet this evidence was witheld from the defence. The claims made before the early pre trial courts by the prosecution amount to perjury.

The record of the massive suppression of evidence in this case is here:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/

Considering the apparent bad-faith arrests and detentions on remand of Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba, what is you view of potential ECHR claims?

Would Lumumba, for example, be able to place a claim of violation of Convention Article 5, for example, despite lodging the complaint being very well past the 6-month deadline, because of the bad-faith of the authorities, hiding exculpatory evidence in order to arrest him and detain him? And keeping his business closed as a "crime scene" even after he was released?

The issues of violation of Convention Article 5 because of the suppression of exculpatory evidence at the time of arrest and detention - clearly bad faith on the part of the authorities - would also apply to Knox and Sollecito.
 
Considering the apparent bad-faith arrests and detentions on remand of Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba, what is you view of potential ECHR claims?

Would Lumumba, for example, be able to place a claim of violation of Convention Article 5, for example, despite lodging the complaint being very well past the 6-month deadline, because of the bad-faith of the authorities, hiding exculpatory evidence in order to arrest him and detain him? And keeping his business closed as a "crime scene" even after he was released?

The issues of violation of Convention Article 5 because of the suppression of exculpatory evidence at the time of arrest and detention - clearly bad faith on the part of the authorities - would also apply to Knox and Sollecito.

143. The Court reiterates that Article 5 of the Convention protects the right to liberty and security. This right is of primary importance “in a democratic society” within the meaning of the Convention (see, amongst many other authorities, De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 65, Series A no. 12; Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 169, ECHR 2004‑II; and Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, § 45, ECHR 2008‑...).

144. All persons are entitled to the protection of this right, that is to say, not to be deprived, or continue to be deprived, of their liberty, save in accordance with the conditions specified in paragraph 1 of Article 5 (see Medvedyev and Others, cited above, § 77). Where the “lawfulness” of detention is in issue, including the question whether “a procedure prescribed by law” has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to national law. It requires at the same time that any deprivation of liberty be in keeping with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see Bozano, cited above, § 54, and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 116, ECHR 2008-...).

145. No detention which is arbitrary can be compatible with Article 5 § 1, the notion of “arbitrariness” in this context extending beyond the lack of conformity with national law. While the Court has not previously formulated a global definition as to what types of conduct on the part of the authorities might constitute “arbitrariness” for the purposes of Article 5 § 1, key principles have been developed on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, the notion of arbitrariness in the context of Article 5 varies to a certain extent depending on the type of detention involved (see Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 77, ECHR 2009‑...).

146. For example, the Court has already established that detention will be “arbitrary” where, despite complying with the letter of national law, there has been an element of bad faith or deception on the part of the authorities (see Bozano, cited above, § 59); where the domestic authorities have neglected to attempt to apply the relevant legislation correctly (see Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, § 47, Reports 1996‑III); or where judicial authorities have authorised detention for a prolonged period of time without giving any grounds for doing so in their decisions (see Stašaitis v. Lithuania, no. 47679/99, § 67, 21 March 2002).

Source: ISKANDAROV v. RUSSIA 17185/05 23/09/2010
 
You don't think it very strange the defense calculatingly kept quiet about this stain until too late, in case it turned out to be Raff's? (source: Raff himself).

Even if it was Raff, no doubt he'd argue he and Amanda were having sex all the time at the cottage.

You make the mistake of focussing on unhelpful matters and you make a false claim. Raffaele was understandably concerned that the prosecution would fake results in order to incriminate him and not because he feared that he was the source of the stain. We already know that the suppression of evidence allowed DNA results to stand in court despite the witholding of the EDFs which would have permitted those results to have been comprehensively impeached. But Raffaele also saw the prosecution claim falsely in court that the bloody shoeprints in Kercher's room were his - they couldn't count the tred rings - and also claim that the bathmat track was his when the peculiar arrangement of his toes precluded that.

So it's not about what the defence thinks or the prosecution claims, it's about what evidence can prove. There is a massive qualitative difference between evidence like Nara or Quintavalle or Curatalo and real, correctly obtained and analysed physical evidence.

The question is : Did the massive suppression of evidence in this case inhibit the courts? The answer is categorically, yes. These courts denied themselves the opportunity of having before them the means to properly understand what happened.
 
Considering the apparent bad-faith arrests and detentions on remand of Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba, what is you view of potential ECHR claims?

Would Lumumba, for example, be able to place a claim of violation of Convention Article 5, for example, despite lodging the complaint being very well past the 6-month deadline, because of the bad-faith of the authorities, hiding exculpatory evidence in order to arrest him and detain him? And keeping his business closed as a "crime scene" even after he was released?

The issues of violation of Convention Article 5 because of the suppression of exculpatory evidence at the time of arrest and detention - clearly bad faith on the part of the authorities - would also apply to Knox and Sollecito.

Well, Lumumba is out of time. I hope Amanda and Raffaele make new applications to the ECHR - take everything they can to the court from the fag end of the case. But they are limited by the acquittals as to what they can do.

A more penetrative approach might be to get the Italian justice department to order a wholesale enquiry into the case and order the release of witheld evidence, commissioning an independent report on the case. Everyone except the judiciary wants the judiciary reformed. This might be a route to it.

I would go after Mignini and Stefanoni if it were me, using whatever facility was available. But Amanda and Raffaele might think this is not a fight worth having.
 
Last edited:
You make the mistake of focussing on unhelpful matters and you make a false claim. Raffaele was understandably concerned that the prosecution would fake results in order to incriminate him and not because he feared that he was the source of the stain. We already know that the suppression of evidence allowed DNA results to stand in court despite the witholding of the EDFs which would have permitted those results to have been comprehensively impeached. But Raffaele also saw the prosecution claim falsely in court that the bloody shoeprints in Kercher's room were his - they couldn't count the tred rings - and also claim that the bathmat track was his when the peculiar arrangement of his toes precluded that.

So it's not about what the defence thinks or the prosecution claims, it's about what evidence can prove. There is a massive qualitative difference between evidence like Nara or Quintavalle or Curatalo and real, correctly obtained and analysed physical evidence.

The question is : Did the massive suppression of evidence in this case inhibit the courts? The answer is categorically, yes. These courts denied themselves the opportunity of having before them the means to properly understand what happened.

Kauffer

The part of Vixen's argument I don't get is that it was the defences fault that the semen stain was not tested.

As I recall, Raff and Amanda didn't have a "defence" until their first court appearance.

In the time leading up to the court case there was no defence team to ask for certain items to be tested. By the time the pair had a defence team any items that hadn't been collected and stored correctly were essentially worthless as evidence. They had been moved around the murder scene, handled or trodden on, and mixed with other items, i.e. Meredith's bloody clothes in the wash basket.

Yet the defence was asked to prove contamination!

What confidence could any of the defence team have in the investigators? They couldn't even count the rings on the sole of a shoe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom