Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

I have no idea how people here view the calunnia though those that accept the not guilty verdict certainly doubt that she lied about Patrick with one notable exception

We do have a felony very similar to calunnia, which is false reporting of a crime. Google it in the news and see.

With all due respect Grinder, that's a stretch. Amanda did not "falsely" report a crime. Under interrogation for a known crime she suggested that someone else committed it. Even in her statement, she did not say she saw Meredith murdered.

 

[acbytesla]

I think it is pretty clear.

Anyone who with a denunciation, complaint, demand or request, even anonymously or under a false name, directs a judicial authority or other authority that has an obligation to report, to blame someone for a crime who he knows is innocent, that is he fabricates evidence against someone, shall be punished with imprisonment from two to six years.

While our false reporting of a crime does not require naming the perp, it can.

It's a stretch.

 

[Grinder]

Nara Capezzali was deemed credible by all judges, Hellmann included.
But you go on omitting that her testimony is confirmed by Antonella Monacchia.

She said that she heard a couple arguing in Italian. Perhaps there was a scream at around 11 that had nothing to do with this case.

At 11 the kids were in the plaza according to Curatolo.

Since you have been to the scene, would they pass by the garage camera going from the plaza to the house?

The car and tow truck were there until 11:24 and the breakdown occurred well before 11. Why didn't the car people hear anything? Why didn't they see the kids running around?

 

[Grinder]

With all due respect Grinder, that's a stretch. Amanda did not "falsely" report a crime. Under interrogation for a known crime she suggested that someone else committed it. Even in her statement, she did not say she saw Meredith murdered.

Ahhhh Tesla. The issue was whether we have anything like calunnia here as you made the statement we don't. But we do.

"Filing a false police report can lead to multiple criminal consequences. Many states call this charge "false report to a peace officer." It is one of the few types of speech that is not constitutionally protected. Lying to a law enforcement officer can result in a criminal conviction. "

If you read on this you will find that what Amanda did could be charged with a felony here. They are state laws so have different names and penalties. It is not clear that one couldn't be extradited for a calunnia conviction. IMO.

 

[acbytesla]

A poll in 2011 revealed that something like 40% of US citizens believed 9/11 attack was committed by Saddam Hussein.
What Americans believe is not on my radar, and actually not on yours either. I have never understood what US think, and has never been of my interest. I can tell I feel reasonably certain that what the average Americans apparently "think" will have a very remote relationship with grasp of reality on really many topics.

So? I'd agree that the public is often mistaken and are often mislead by the press and in that case the government itself. I'm sure to some degree, this is true all over the world, not just the US.

The point is very simple. If what you do on a forum is to rant that you've won and it's over or that you don't care of things, then what you are doing is, simply, only covering your ears like Amanda Knox did to not hear Meredith's horrific scream. That is you are only telling you don't want to hear or discuss topics, what you only try to do is say something that makes the interlocutor stop.
As I entered this forum weeks ago, your first and only response to a factual point I made was to say "who cares". Basically you kept going on saying the same thing.
I am here to talk about factual things about the case. Lies told about Knox, or even why I think the suspects have certain personality traits, or why the Knix propaganda statements are false, what the sentences actually say, and so on.
These are the kinds of topics. You won't change that.

I'm convinced that you wouldn't know a fact if it hit you in the face. You talk and you talk and you talk. Yet reality escapes you constantly. You insist that Rudy had to break in by way of the balcony because it may be easier but refuse to accept the fact that both entry points would have been very easy for an athletic young man. So ease of entry would hardly be a concern for Rudy.

You suggest that Amanda will face more legal troubles but the only place I read such nonsense is from ranting lunatics at the usual hate sites. Nowhere in the mainstream press in the US, the UK or Italy. If I am mistaken feel free to point to me to these articles. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure that this is just you desperately clinging to some bizarre hope.

 

[Planigale]

Let's see, she gets up to pee and hears the most blood curdling scream of her life and then opens the window and hears the footsteps.

This is at a time that Curatolo is seeing the kids in the plaza. Nara doesn't call the police or even look at a clock or watch. The perps run out of the cottage shortly after the scream not giving them time to wash off the blood. The kids return to the plaza (that they never left according to AC) without washing.

And the earth is flat and the center of the universe.

Yes, the odd thing is the selective use of part of a testimony. So we can have Curatolo seeing Knox and Sollecito out that evening to prove they were not at Sollecito's, but not the testimony that they were present when the 'argument, prolonged torture that some argue for, murder, cleaning and staging occurred that would have meant their absence from the square for hours. The testimony of Guede can be considered for the cause of the argument but not for the timing of the murder. The scream can be considered as indicating time of death even though there is nothing to indicate that the scream was related to the murder, but the steps running away are not considered to preclude prolonged staging and clean up after the murder as the prosecution allege. The scream is heard, but not the broken window.

 

[Mike1711]

posted in error

 

[Strozzi]

I don't believe a sane person could ever write this post.

Mach, I agree with you. Maybe RW spent too many hours in the sun today and suffered from sunstroke. But what he wrote is much less absurd than Mignini's claim to the court where Mignini quotes Amanda verbatim, at length, tormenting the victim.

My favorite outrageous quote is Mignini's words attributed by him to Amanda: "I'll teach you, you little slut" as he has Amanda pricking and stabbing her housemate with Raffaele's kitchen knife. Perhaps Mignini also suffered from too much exposure to the sun, but he submitted those words to an Italian court rather than on a harmless blog. Absurd prosecutorial behavior!

Would you also agree that no sane person could commission, script, or submit as evidence the animation that the prosecution submitted as evidence to the court?

 

[Strozzi]

Duplicate

 

[Mike1711]

Oh, it isn't. It isn't probative at all. Scientific literature was referred to multiple times, yet you fail to accept it.
And if it were probative as negative for the luminol stains,it would be probative in positive for the mop. So what kind of evidence was Stefanoni meaning to hide?
And also, when she mentioned multiple tests and said they were negative, if she was not specific enough, why didn't the defence ask to specify better? What do you think a cross questioning is for? Yet, despite such absolute nothing, you accuse Stefanoni of lying. And you even state TMB negative is probative despite scientific evidence of the contrary (even scientific papers recently claiming that no presumptive test should follow luminol), and well knowing there wouldn't be any alternative substance that doesn't react to TMB. Is it possible that you can't see how biased you are?

The results proved nothing so the defence will and should simply rest on this issue.

 

[Planigale]

A problem with all the evidence Mach gives for the staging of the burglary is that it isequally evidence against staging. If Guede had to have muddy feet and had to have left mud in Filomena's bedroom, so should the stagers. If say Sollecito had to go into the garden in the dark after the murder, found a rock and thrown it through a window, he should have left shoe prints in the garden and trod dirt through the flat. If he carried the stone in to break the window from the inside he should have introduced mud into the flat. No DNA of Guede's was found in Filomena's bedroom, but none of Filomena's was found. This may mean they did not look very hard. It is also in contrast with Guede's statement that he entered the bedroom. Black hairs were found on the broken window. We know neither Knox nor Sollecito had black hair. People seem happy to argue blonde hairs were Knox's but not that black hairs on the glass were Guede's. We have no evidence that the forensic scientists looked for mud in Filomea's bedroom (probably because unless it was part of a shoe print it would have had no evidential use - mud from your own garden it could have come in any time).

People do not think logically. Where is the evidence that burglar's use logic. The whole crime was illogical so why should logic come into play for one small part. Logic is most likely to be part of a planned staging.

What we do know and no one has refuted is that the pattern of broken glass could only have resulted from the window being broken from outside. The position of the stone fits with this. It is illogical to think that having committed a murder that the participants would stand as Mach argues in view of passersby and attract attention by breaking a window. This is illogical. The broken glass fragment also links Guede to Filomena's room.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach - you said that walkers near Filomena's window on the road would see Rudy because he's so close to them - this is your own "indicator" (whatever THAT is), not mine, that Rudy would not have chosen that side of the cottage to break-in. That a "logical" burglar would have chosen the balcony.

First - it was you who said that a silhouette would not have been deemed suspicious if spied from one of the many apartments with direct line of sight to the balcony; even as it is lit by a street-light. But that same silhouette would/could be seen **climbing** which **would** be suspicious. Such a burglar could not see those people staring across.... (Remember, you admitted that a silhouette would be visible - I think more than that, but let's go with silhouette for a second!)

Second - The footfall issue belongs to what Rudy would have heard under Filomena's window - it is that Rudy would be nicely and stealthily hidden on the lower level, unseen in the darkness; but still able to hear clearly those footfalls of the pedestrians **you** say are so close. Why wouldn't he? It's you who says Nara **could** hear footfalls at much greater distance and through the glass of her window.

(...)

Filomena's window is the worst choice for a burglar (except for Meredith's window, which is impractical in rerum natura).
Both the rear balcony and Knox's window are better choices.
This is so self-evident that actually shouldn't be the object of a discussion.
Besides the aspects of why the entry point is illogical, that I may even address again ad nauseam in other posts, what I find most striking of your argument is the massive amount of omission. The disappearing of everything else. The "red flags" evidence of staging is a long list. All points, including illogical choice of entry point, stand, unaffected by any of your points. Evidence that Guede committed a burglary is zero.
All this disappears in your posts. You go on telling me how good that entrance would be for a burglar with peculiar athletic attitudes.

 

[Machiavelli]

A problem with all the evidence Mach gives for the staging of the burglary is that it isequally evidence against staging. If Guede had to have muddy feet and had to have left mud in Filomena's bedroom, so should the stagers. If say Sollecito had to go into the garden in the dark after the murder, found a rock and thrown it through a window, he should have left shoe prints in the garden and trod dirt through the flat. If he carried the stone in to break the window from the inside he should have introduced mud into the flat. No DNA of Guede's was found in Filomena's bedroom, but none of Filomena's was found. This may mean they did not look very hard. It is also in contrast with Guede's statement that he entered the bedroom. Black hairs were found on the broken window. We know neither Knox nor Sollecito had black hair. People seem happy to argue blonde hairs were Knox's but not that black hairs on the glass were Guede's. We have no evidence that the forensic scientists looked for mud in Filomea's bedroom (probably because unless it was part of a shoe print it would have had no evidential use - mud from your own garden it could have come in any time).

People do not think logically. Where is the evidence that burglar's use logic. The whole crime was illogical so why should logic come into play for one small part. Logic is most likely to be part of a planned staging.

What we do know and no one has refuted is that the pattern of broken glass could only have resulted from the window being broken from outside. The position of the stone fits with this. It is illogical to think that having committed a murder that the participants would stand as Mach argues in view of passersby and attract attention by breaking a window. This is illogical. The broken glass fragment also links Guede to Filomena's room.

You seem to be very interested in DNA. You may go back upthread and look for my response to your post about Stefanoni (a more factual topic).

 

[Kauffer]

A problem with all the evidence Mach gives for the staging of the burglary is that it isequally evidence against staging. If Guede had to have muddy feet and had to have left mud in Filomena's bedroom, so should the stagers. If say Sollecito had to go into the garden in the dark after the murder, found a rock and thrown it through a window, he should have left shoe prints in the garden and trod dirt through the flat. If he carried the stone in to break the window from the inside he should have introduced mud into the flat. No DNA of Guede's was found in Filomena's bedroom, but none of Filomena's was found. This may mean they did not look very hard. It is also in contrast with Guede's statement that he entered the bedroom. Black hairs were found on the broken window. We know neither Knox nor Sollecito had black hair. People seem happy to argue blonde hairs were Knox's but not that black hairs on the glass were Guede's. We have no evidence that the forensic scientists looked for mud in Filomea's bedroom (probably because unless it was part of a shoe print it would have had no evidential use - mud from your own garden it could have come in any time).

People do not think logically. Where is the evidence that burglar's use logic. The whole crime was illogical so why should logic come into play for one small part. Logic is most likely to be part of a planned staging.

What we do know and no one has refuted is that the pattern of broken glass could only have resulted from the window being broken from outside. The position of the stone fits with this. It is illogical to think that having committed a murder that the participants would stand as Mach argues in view of passersby and attract attention by breaking a window. This is illogical. The broken glass fragment also links Guede to Filomena's room.

This is an excellent post and you have highlighted the essential problems associated with an argument for staging. We also need to stress, I think, that only 5 forensic tests took place on samples and items in Romanelli's room. They failed to isolate DNA from a blood sample and only tested the rock at the behest of the defence. There is no evidence whatsoever that any real investigation was carried out on the assumption of a staged burglary and no evidence anybody checked the ground outside the window - certainly a grid search would have been called for. But the number one objection to the contention that the burglary was staged is, as you point out, the distribution pattern of the glass in the room - it could only have been made by a rock impact coming from the outside. Furthermore, there are multiple testimonies in which the observation is made that glass fragments were both on top of and underneath items in the room.

Indeed, if the burglary was staged after the fact, then a great deal of explanation is required to account for the fragment of glass found in Kercher's room. Where are the trail of prints leading out of Kercher's room, into Romanelli's and back into Kercher's room? Or, alternatively, where is the cleanup evidence in the form of luminol swirls along this path?

 

[Machiavelli]

A problem with all the evidence Mach gives for the staging of the burglary is that it isequally evidence against staging. If Guede had to have muddy feet and had to have left mud in Filomena's bedroom, so should the stagers. If say Sollecito had to go into the garden in the dark after the murder, found a rock and thrown it through a window, he should have left shoe prints in the garden and trod dirt through the flat. If he carried the stone in to break the window from the inside he should have introduced mud into the flat. No DNA of Guede's was found in Filomena's bedroom, but none of Filomena's was found. This may mean they did not look very hard. It is also in contrast with Guede's statement that he entered the bedroom. Black hairs were found on the broken window. We know neither Knox nor Sollecito had black hair. People seem happy to argue blonde hairs were Knox's but not that black hairs on the glass were Guede's. We have no evidence that the forensic scientists looked for mud in Filomea's bedroom (probably because unless it was part of a shoe print it would have had no evidential use - mud from your own garden it could have come in any time).

Not exactly. The rock would be thrown from the area of the fence, where there is gravel. Grass and mud cover the slope below Filomena's window, it's not everywhere.

A curious detail: muddy shoeprints of Guede were found, but in his apartment. While he was at the cottage, his shoes were clean (except for the half of his right sole that got dirty with blood on his walking out).

There is absolutely zero evidence of Guede committing a burglary. The hair found in Filomena's room is not black, it's dark brown. And it's longer than Guede's hair.

People do not think logically. Where is the evidence that burglar's use logic. The whole crime was illogical so why should logic come into play for one small part. Logic is most likely to be part of a planned staging.

A logical explanation must always be preferred. If you find a string of words forming a phrase in a syntactically correct order, you have to assume that most likely words were not placed following a random order.

What we do know and no one has refuted is that the pattern of broken glass could only have resulted from the window being broken from outside. The position of the stone fits with this. It is illogical to think that having committed a murder that the participants would stand as Mach argues in view of passersby and attract attention by breaking a window. This is illogical. The broken glass fragment also links Guede to Filomena's room.

This is not true, because staging a burglary is something very common on domestic murders.
As for attracting attantion of passers by, one also should consider the time: one thing is 21:00 or 23:00, another thing is 3.00 or 4:00 am.

Absolutely nothing likns Guede to Filomena's room.
The glass fragment is obviously consistent with a staging, since stagers obviously would have done some clean up, they altered the scene inside Meredith's room and washed themselves up in the small bathroom (where no DNA od Guede was found).

 

[Ken Dine]

With all due respect Grinder, that's a stretch. Amanda did not "falsely" report a crime. Under interrogation for a known crime she suggested that someone else committed it. Even in her statement, she did not say she saw Meredith murdered.

I agree since to "falsely report a crime" usually entails the perp proactively contacting the police, and then with malice falsely accuse someone they don't like of doing something criminal.

In Amanda's case, she was hauled into an interrogation room and forced to name Lumumba.

A closer parallel crime in America would be knowingly giving false statements to the police during an investigation, which is what sent Martha Stewart to the slammer.

BTW - I feel Martha Stewart didn't deserved jail time for what she did, but that would likely be the closest parallel to Amanda's supposed Italian crime.

 

[Strozzi]

Filomena's window is the worst choice for a burglar (except for Meredith's window, which is impractical in rerum natura).
Both the rear balcony and Knox's window are better choices. This is so self-evident that actually shouldn't be the object of a discussion.
Besides the aspects of why the entry point is illogical, that I may even address again ad nauseam in other posts, what I find most striking of your argument is the massive amount of omission. The disappearing of everything else. The "red flags" evidence of staging is a long list. All points, including illogical choice of entry point, stand, unaffected by any of your points. Evidence that Guede committed a burglary is zero.
All this disappears in your posts. You go on telling me how good that entrance would be for a burglar with peculiar athletic attitudes.

Rudi didn't know that. He didn't know as Mach writes above that the rear balcony and Knox's window are better choices. Perhaps he didn't think of it. Perhaps he didn't realize that there is a second-floor balcony above the wall that he walked past. Or perhaps he was aware of the upper balcony but thought it was exposed or that he could be compromised up there before he could get down. Perhaps Rudi wanted to be on solid ground with an escape route when he threw the rock

 

[davefoc]

...

There is absolutely zero evidence of Guede committing a burglary...

???

Previous burglaries by Guede aren't evidence that he committed one here?

Guede's DNA in Kercher's purse isn't evidence that Guede committed a burglary here?

Two phones removed from the residence aren't evidence that Guede committed a burglary?

Money was stolen from Kercher's purse is evidence that somebody committed burglary and Guede is known to have been in the apartment at the time Kercher was murdered. That isn't evidence for Guede committing burglary?

What does "there is absolutely zero evidence of Guede committing a burglary" mean?

I suppose in some sort of hyper guilter land the theory is that Guede didn't commit the burglary because AK/RS did? Really, two people with no history of burglary one of whom was moderately wealthy and the other one who was at least comfortable are more likely burglary suspects than the guy who is known to have committed burglary and who was short of funds? Wow. What drives this Rudy cult?

I think Machiavelli's guess is that the semen stain was tested and found to be Guede's. I think Machiavelli is fine with that because he is so sure that AK/RS are guilty that any shenanigans like that by the prosecutor/forensic examiner is OK since he realizes that a whole lot of people would not be so enthused about the cult of Rudy if they knew he ejaculated over the dying body of Kercher who he had just killed. And convicting AK/RS of murder is the most important thing above all else in this case.

 

[Planigale]

Not exactly. The rock would be thrown from the area of the fence, where there is gravel. Grass and mud cover the slope below Filomena's window, it's not everywhere.

A curious detail: muddy shoeprints of Guede were found, but in his apartment. While he was at the cottage, his shoes were clean (except for the half of his right sole that got dirty with blood on his walking out).

There is absolutely zero evidence of Guede committing a burglary. The hair found in Filomena's room is not black, it's dark brown. And it's longer than Guede's hair.



A logical explanation must always be preferred. If you find a string of words forming a phrase in a syntactically correct order, you have to assume that most likely words were not placed following a random order.



This is not true, because staging a burglary is something very common on domestic murders.
As for attracting attantion of passers by, one also should consider the time: one thing is 21:00 or 23:00, another thing is 3.00 or 4:00 am.

Absolutely nothing likns Guede to Filomena's room.
The glass fragment is obviously consistent with a staging, since stagers obviously would have done some clean up, they altered the scene inside Meredith's room and washed themselves up in the small bathroom (where no DNA od Guede was found).

Guide said he entered Filomena's room. So this is a link.

PS where is there documentation about the length of Guede's hair vs the length of the hair found. I can find no record of Guede's hair length (based on a representative set of hairs from various sites on his head +/- axillary and pubic hairs. Or are you just making this up about hair length?

 

[Planigale]

Not exactly. The rock would be thrown from the area of the fence, where there is gravel. Grass and mud cover the slope below Filomena's window, it's not everywhere.

A curious detail: muddy shoeprints of Guede were found, but in his apartment. While he was at the cottage, his shoes were clean (except for the half of his right sole that got dirty with blood on his walking out).

There is absolutely zero evidence of Guede committing a burglary. The hair found in Filomena's room is not black, it's dark brown. And it's longer than Guede's hair.



A logical explanation must always be preferred. If you find a string of words forming a phrase in a syntactically correct order, you have to assume that most likely words were not placed following a random order.



This is not true, because staging a burglary is something very common on domestic murders.
As for attracting attantion of passers by, one also should consider the time: one thing is 21:00 or 23:00, another thing is 3.00 or 4:00 am.
Absolutely nothing likns Guede to Filomena's room.
The glass fragment is obviously consistent with a staging, since stagers obviously would have done some clean up, they altered the scene inside Meredith's room and washed themselves up in the small bathroom (where no DNA od Guede was found).

Yes breaking glass when clubs and pubs are open in the late evening would be less noticeable than 3 or 4 in the morning when there was little other noise. So I am not sure when you think it is most logical to break a window. What is your evidence that staging burglary is 'common' in domestic murders? What is your definition of common?

There is a great deal of evidence humans do not think logically. You arguing contrary does make it true it just makes you wrong. Humans do not think or act logically. The most immediate evidence is you. You argue against logic. You are emotionally committed to an evil Knox despite no evidence. Your whole thought train betrays a commitment to the concept that Knox is evil therefore she would have committed a murder therefore all actions have to be interpreted in the light of her being an evil murderer. The sad thing is you cannot see that your beliefs are illogical.