Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

I posted above the Australian, Crudo's, deposition that Rudy had been to his place and also noticed no cuts. Unless there's the further claim that PLE somehow interfered with his deposition (perhaps because by Dec 8, Crudo could not remember if he'd gone out with Rudy on Nov 1!!!) than this is not a "ridiculous Italian judge myth". Grinder has ever reason to accept this.

"I noticed no cuts" doesn't mean anything, except that he didn't look for them. It's the same as the Perugian cops saying that there was no glass on the ground when they never even looked for it.

He wouldn't have been actively bleeding 2 hours later, so it's not necessary for anyone to have noticed blood, if Rudy was conscious of the wound and kept his palm to himself.

He said he was cut at the cottage, and we have pictures of the cuts. And yet, you guys want to say that he cut himself doing no one knows what in Germany. A little Occam's razor would be helpful here.

Once we accept that he cut himself knifing Kercher, the questions are: where's the blood, and why didn't the authorities report finding it?

 

[Bill Williams]

"I noticed no cuts" doesn't mean anything, except that he didn't look for them. It's the same as the Perugian cops saying that there was no glass on the ground when they never even looked for it.

........ <sinister deletia>..........​

Once we accept that he cut himself knifing Kercher, the questions are: where's the blood, and why didn't the authorities report finding it?

The issue for me is that we have to let the evidence drive this. If Crudo said what he said, I do not buy that he could have seen Rudy the next day and NOT seen cuts to the hand. I cannot begin to tell you my own experience of noting equivalent mishaps on people's hands, more minor than one presume than for a knifing.

We have to let the evidence show what it shows. As per Grinder, there's just so much more than this to condemn Rudy, including his own admission he was at the cottage at the time in question.

It's one this to demonstrate incompetence/fraud of the PLE. It's another to go looking for it.

 

[Diocletus]

The issue for me is that we have to let the evidence drive this. If Crudo said what he said, I do not buy that he could have seen Rudy the next day and NOT seen cuts to the hand. I cannot begin to tell you my own experience of noting equivalent mishaps on people's hands, more minor than one presume than for a knifing.

We have to let the evidence show what it shows. As per Grinder, there's just so much more than this to condemn Rudy, including his own admission he was at the cottage at the time in question.

It's one this to demonstrate incompetence/fraud of the PLE. It's another to go looking for it.

You're relying on untested testimony. See here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9959150#post9959150

You guys are getting suckered by the judges.

 

[analemma]

I am not sure that Machiavelli is lying here. He may be misremembering or conflating, but IIRC there was at least one burglary through the balcony.

What's at issue is Machiavelli's claim that the balcony is the most logical entry point, combined with that burglars ALWAYS do the most logical thing. It is Machiavelli's spurious argumentative method which is at issue.

Before Filomena's window was permanently barred - cf. the Channel 5 video demonstration of the ease of the climb - I saw a newspaper report of a break-in subsequent to the Kercher murder at the cottage with the sole accompanying pic showing Filomena's window boarded-up.

What I cannot confirm (because I cannot find it again) is what the text of the piece **specifically said** about entry points. I know one entry point mentioned was the kitchen window.....

..... which pretty much destroys Machiavelli's argument that the balcony is the most logical choice and that burglars always act logically - what with the mandatory pointed-ears and all. But I cannot confirm that the implication of the pic showing what it showed was **specifically** confirmed in the text of even the accompanying article.

The problem is people like Machiavelli trying to make Filomena's window seem radioactive to burglars so that they will rather traverse the maelstrom of Hades before breaking in there. It's Machiavelli's version of "Judicially-generated evidence", although in his case it is "silly-driven evidence."

I would just like to know where other break ins occurred.
If Mach is sure about the other break ins he can provide the proof and I am wrong.
It just seems to me that if no burglar would ever DREAM of breaking in Filomena's window, then why was it barred, as we all saw when the demo was shot.
maybe I will get references from Mach: He has surprised me on occasion when he provides references.

 

[Bill Williams]

You're relying on untested testimony. See here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9959150#post9959150

You guys are getting suckered by the judges.

True - IIRC Crudo was never called to testify. Yet I would not go so far as to say we're being suckered by judges. It's just that there actually is reason to believe that Grinder is right.

If you only knew how hard that last sentence was to type.........

 

[Bill Williams]

I would just like to know where other break ins occurred.
If Mach is sure about the other break ins he can provide the proof and I am wrong.
It just seems to me that if no burglar would ever DREAM of breaking in Filomena's window, then why was it barred, as we all saw when the demo was shot.
maybe I will get references from Mach: He has surprised me on occasion when he provides references.

It sounds like the only **confirmed** entry point was Filomena's window. (I put it that way for the sole purpose of giving Machiavelli apoplexy!)

So, analemma, you and I may be at cross purposes here. You want Machiavelli to document his claims. Fair enough. I'm wanting him to straighten out his argumentative style - making silly claims about "burglar's logic" and such, with the sole point of making Filomena's window seem radioactive.

 

[Diocletus]

True - IIRC Crudo was never called to testify. Yet I would not go so far as to say we're being suckered by judges. It's just that there actually is reason to believe that Grinder is right.

If you only knew how hard that last sentence was to type.........

Credulous skeptics pain me.

 

[Bill Williams]

Credulous skeptics pain me.

Ok, I had to look that one up. At first I thought you were caving in. Then I read.......

Credulity*is a state of willingness to believe in one or many people or things in the absence of reasonable proof or knowledge.*Credulity*is not simply a belief in something that may be false. The subject of the belief may even be correct, but a*credulous*person will believe it without good evidence.

Ouch. However my point stands. There is "reason to believe" that Grinder is right.

You're just mad at me because I have a 100% prediction record.

 

[davefoc]

...t there actually is reason to believe that Grinder is right.

....

There is reason to believe that Grinder could be right, but I think Diocletus's point is that he is probably wrong.

The kind of injury that lightly slicing the underside of one's fingers with a knife would probably not be readily apparent to any one especially after a few hours have passed. The nature of the wounds in the German picture are strongly suggestive of an injury that occurred in the act of stabbing something. How much stabbing did Guede do in the time before he was caught? The window for this stabbing is further constrained by the fact that the wounds on Guede's hand had healed quite a bit by the time the picture was taken.

As to whether Guede's blood was found: It certainly seems probable. The situation is not completely analogous to the Knox mixed blood claim. There is no reason to believe Guede's DNA was on the purse before he entered the bedroom. So his DNA either came from his blood or his skin cells deposited at the time he touched the purse. Blood seems to be the likely source to me. Touch DNA seems to be problematic because of the low quantities and finding DNA in somebody's blood is routine.

Also if the blood was from Kercher then by happenstance Guede needs to touch in the spot where a drop of Kercher's blood was deposited and where the blood was sampled. The more likely explanation is that Guede's DNA was found where he bled.

Of course, all of this would be moot if the blood had been typed so that it would be possible to identify it as either coming from Guede or Kercher, but without that I think there's a very good chance it was from Guede. The real crime here is that Guede's wounds were ignored by the investigators as to their relationship to the crime. There doesn't seem to have been any attempt to challenge any of Guede's assertions about the crime and not investigating his wounds seems to be part of a pattern that includes ignoring the semen stain, not fully reporting the results of the rape kit testing and not investigating the downstairs blood evidence beyond making assertions about it that seem to be absurd.

 

[Ken Dine]

For some time,
I've wondered this:
How many towels were there inside of Meredith + Amanda's bathroom?

Rudy Guede says that after the dude stabbed Meredith and he fought him off,
that he grabbed 3 towels to try and save his "date",
apparently goin' back + forth to the bathroom to grab a towel
1 at a time.

And I recall that Miss Knox had a shower the next morning,
do I recall correctly that there were not any towels in the bathroom?

Any idea if there were more than 3 towels there that night? If so, I have to wonder what did Rudy Guede do with them?

There were 3 towels found in Meredith's bedroom (note the many mentions of "hair formations"):

DNA test results from Meredith's room Sample Description Result:

Rep. 59 Bra 6 samples tested, all revealed victim's DNA, Trace B revealed Guede's DNA

**Rep. 60 Blood-soaked green towel found beneath body No profile obtained (3 samples); 2 hair formations were also found but were unsuitable for DNA analysis.

Rep. 61 Blood-soaked light-colored towel found next to body Match for victim (both of 2 samples); a number of hair formations found on this towel were examined but were unsuitable for DNA analysis.

Rep. 62 Beige towel on mattress Match for victim (all of five samples); hair formations were also examined but found unsuitable for DNA analysis.

Rep. 63 White bedsheet 5 samples tested, 3 matched victim, 2 produced no profile; hair formations were also examined but found unsuitable for testing or else produced no profile.


(**According to Frank Sfarzo, the reason no DNA profile was obtained from this bloody towel is because the blood became rotten before the tests were performed.)


http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/selected_dna_results.pdf

 

[Ken Dine]

That's not what the link says and I've never seen or heard of Rudi's blood being found at the crime scene or his apartment.

In Batch 5 (29 December 2007-early January 2008, not attended by defense observers), the lab isolated two blood-positive samples bearing Guede’s profile. These new samples were from Kercher’s purse and sweatshirt, indicating that Guede had handled, and perhaps bled on these items at the time of the murder.​

If the PGP make the same claim about Amanda's blood mixed with Meredith's based on the same findings, it would be rejected here.

I very much doubt he was bleeding or they would have found it at his apartment if no where else. Maybe I forgot about them finding it at his apartment.

The thing is that I paid attention to this because of the healing cuts found in Germany. I believe they were self inflicted to conform with the "blond Italian" attacker and his fight with him.

The source is hardly neutral on the subject yet even there it is only a "perhaps" as for Rudi bleeding. It certainly isn't surprising that there would be blood on those item, but almost for sure Meredith's.

I agree. I think there is plenty of evidence of Rudy without having to use questionable evidence.

Anything that came out of Stefanoni's lab would be "questionable evidence," so which standards would you use to accept some of Stef's results while rejecting other results as gleamed from Stef's work by other DNA experts?

I have no idea which DNA expert actually prepared these critiques of Stefanoni's work, but this DNA analysis was obviously done by an expert who understands the proper process of DNA analysis:

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

Perhaps, Mark C. Waterbury, Ph.D. was involved:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/MarkWaterbury.html

Perhaps, the DNA analysis was done by Greg Hampikian, the Boise State professor and director of the Idaho Innocence Project who was also a big Amanda Knox supporter:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24534110

Maybe, DNA expert Bruce Budowle was involved (UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER at FORT WORTH
Department of Forensic and Investigative Genetics
UNT Center for Human Identification):

http://thefreelancedesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Budowle_knox_clean.pdf

Many DNA experts have ripped apart Stefanoni's lab methodology as well as her results (including Conti & Vecchiotti), since Stef's DNA results clearly are evidenced by missing (i.e., suppressed) DNA results from the crime scene.

Seriously, to see how bad Stefanoni's lab was, read this:

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

 

[analemma]

It sounds like the only **confirmed** entry point was Filomena's window. (I put it that way for the sole purpose of giving Machiavelli apoplexy!)

So, analemma, you and I may be at cross purposes here. You want Machiavelli to document his claims. Fair enough. I'm wanting him to straighten out his argumentative style - making silly claims about "burglar's logic" and such, with the sole point of making Filomena's window seem radioactive.

Bill
You can go first; I can wait.
Although Mach seems perfectly capable of making silly claims about two different topics.

 

[carbonjam72]

Ok, I had to look that one up. At first I thought you were caving in. Then I read.......

Credulity*is a state of willingness to believe in one or many people or things in the absence of reasonable proof or knowledge.*Credulity*is not simply a belief in something that may be false. The subject of the belief may even be correct, but a*credulous*person will believe it without good evidence.

Ouch. However my point stands. There is "reason to believe" that Grinder is right.

You're just mad at me because I have a 100% prediction record.

Sorry Bill, but I suspect your streak continues.

The issue isn't whether Rudy's cuts on his hands were seen, but whether they were noticed. What reason would anyone have to focus on Rudy's hands at that time, and what reason would Rudy have to not show his hands in so far as possible?

I guess reasonable doubt has to be reasonable.

The true skeptic could argue nihilism, and win by default.

Oh, and by the way, I just learned that Rudy Guede is unlikely to become a repeat offender. This is because he left a "disorganized" crime scene, which makes him statistically unlikely to repeat his crime. The reason being, an "organized" crime scene shows planning and intent, whereas a disorganized crime scene shows an absence of intention. If anything, Rudy will have learned how to avoid rape/murder in any future burglaries. Because the rape/murder was an accidental outcome and unintended consequence of his actions, and very specifically not his intention, Rudy is actually less likely to commit the same crime in the future.

 

[Desert Fox]

Sorry Bill, but I suspect your streak continues.

The issue isn't whether Rudy's cuts on his hands were seen, but whether they were noticed. What reason would anyone have to focus on Rudy's hands at that time, and what reason would Rudy have to not show his hands in so far as possible?

I guess reasonable doubt has to be reasonable.

The true skeptic could argue nihilism, and win by default.

Oh, and by the way, I just learned that Rudy Guede is unlikely to become a repeat offender. This is because he left a "disorganized" crime scene, which makes him statistically unlikely to repeat his crime. The reason being, an "organized" crime scene shows planning and intent, whereas a disorganized crime scene shows an absence of intention. If anything, Rudy will have learned how to avoid rape/murder in any future burglaries. Because the rape/murder was an accidental outcome and unintended consequence of his actions, and very specifically not his intention, Rudy is actually less likely to commit the same crime in the future.

Omar Ballard. . . . .

 

[Ken Dine]

I never said I could prove it but a cut that takes three weeks to heal should have been deep enough to be noticed on the dance floor, IMO.

You have obviously never cut your hand. I've cut my hands many times over the years, and the initial bleeding usually lasts for less than an hour, especially if bandaids are used to apply pressure.

Clearly, if Guede had a large white bandage on his hands while dancing hours after the murder that would likely be noticed, but a discrete bandaid or two likely wouldn't be noticed. Or, by the time he went dancing, the bleeding may have stopped sufficiently to remove any bandages?

Whether or not he had bleeding hands at the cottage doesn't change the fact that he was there as Meredith bled.

No dispute there.

The fact remains that no blood of Rudi was found in the cottage.

The FACT remains that you simply CANNOT make such a claim since Stefanoni's lab clearly had suppressed lots of evidence, and it's a FACT that Stefanoni had suppressed DNA results (evidence) - e.g., where are the EDFs?

Someone said some blood was found in his sink which certainly is possible without bleeding from his cut hands. Amanda's blood was also found in her sink.

I had posted that the sink was one location, but there were others:

5. Batch 4: Guede’s Items Finally Tested (One Month Later)

In Batch 4, 13-18 December 2007, the lab finally analyzed the items that had been seized from Guede’s residence on or about November 16 and in a subsequent raid.

The items included numerous bloody items, which ultimately proved to have Guede’s DNA on them:

1 - a towel,
2 - a sink strainer,
3 - a museum ticket,
4 - sink trap, and
5 - a luminol-positive stain on the floor.

Considered together, these exhibits suggest that Guede was wounded and bleeding prior to fleeing to Germany, a fact that would be consistent with (i) photographs showing healing wounds on Guede’s hands at apprehension, and (ii) Guede’s own admissions that he had cut his hands in the course of the Kercher murder. Notably, all extraction and quantification records for the Batch 4 testing of Guede’s items have been suppressed, and it appears that at least five profiles resulting from analysis of these items have been suppressed. The suppressed profiles correspond with: a pair of jeans (“Loose Fit”) brand, possibly a leather jacket and/or sink and structure-related items at Guede’s apartment.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/guede-dna-investigation/

It is possible that Rudi bled at the cottage but no trace was found that was identified as his.

It's even more likely that Guede's blood was found there and that fact was suppressed since it didn't help in the prosecution of Amanda & Raffaele.

I don't understand why finding [Guede's] palm print in blood, his DNA on the purse and on her sweater, his shoe prints in the hall (with the help of the Sollecitos) and had his admission he was there, they needed to cover up his blood being found or for that matter his semen.

One example - there would be a big difference in finding Guede's touch DNA on the sleeve of Meredith's sweatshirt, rather than finding Guede's blood traces on that same sleeve.

If only Guede's touch DNA was found on Meredith's sleeve, then that could be explained away as Guede helping to restrain Meredith.

WHEREAS, how could the prosecution explain away Guede's blood on Meredith's sleeve since the only explanation for that would be that Guede had removed Meredith's sweatshirt AFTER she had been stabbed, and AFTER Guede had inadvertently cut himself?

At first blush, since Meredith's bloody sweatshirt is proof she was wearing it when she was stabbed, whether Guede's touch DNA or blood DNA was on her sleeve may seem immaterial.

Nevertheless, the prosecution was still trying to lessen Guede's involvement to being a bit-player in order to throw most of the blame at Amanda & Raffaele.

E.g.,since the prosecution had argued that Guede had merely helped restrain Meredith as Amanda had slashed her throat, finding Guede's touch-DNA on Meredith's sweatshirt would be consistent with that prosecution scenario.

However, Guede's blood on Meredith's sleeve would NOT be consistent with that prosecution scenario!

In short, it's clear that many of Stefanoni's DNA results were suppressed, but it's not always logically clear why the prosecution had suppressed some results and not other results?

 

[Planigale]

Mach
You are right about this technique: I checked around myself
Thanks

Just a heads up. The technology mentioned here is ancient - the techniques are literally last century. No one would do a slot and blot / RFLP analysis nowadays. The description of selective lysis of cells for differential selection of sperm cells' DNA is good. Modern technology with ELISA ant STR typing would allow testing of smaller samples and probably just a swabbing of the stain, rather than the total extraction described.

 

[Ken Dine]

"I noticed no cuts" doesn't mean anything, except that he didn't look for them. It's the same as the Perugian cops saying that there was no glass on the ground when they never even looked for it.

He wouldn't have been actively bleeding 2 hours later, so it's not necessary for anyone to have noticed blood, if Rudy was conscious of the wound and kept his palm to himself.

He said he was cut at the cottage, and we have pictures of the cuts. And yet, you guys want to say that he cut himself doing no one knows what in Germany. A little Occam's razor would be helpful here.

EXACTLY!

Once we accept that he cut himself knifing Kercher, the questions are: where's the blood, and why didn't the authorities report finding it?

Guede's touch DNA on Meredith's sleeve would be consistent with the prosecution's scenario that Guede had merely restrained Meredith while Amanda had slashed her throat.

Guede's blood on Meredith's sleeve would be inconsistent with the prosecution's claim that Guede was a bit-player who merely had restrained Meredith but didn't actually stab her.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill
You can go first; I can wait.
Although Mach seems perfectly capable of making silly claims about two different topics.

LOL!

 

[Bill Williams]

You're just mad at me because I have a 100% prediction record.

Sorry Bill, but I suspect your streak continues.

I can't buy a friend.

The issue isn't whether Rudy's cuts on his hands were seen, but whether they were noticed. What reason would anyone have to focus on Rudy's hands at that time, and what reason would Rudy have to not show his hands in so far as possible?

I guess reasonable doubt has to be reasonable.

The true skeptic could argue nihilism, and win by default.

All I can say is that Grinder had "reason to believe".... that's a repeat I know. When people are in each other's company they notice things. My view is that they would have noticed, more so than not noticed.

Is this a point on which things turn? No. It's another reason to bide time in waiting for the motivations report, which reports say is in the queue, and that there's a backlog of motivations reports which do not need to be finished swiftly - due to it not going back to another judicial level.

 

[davefoc]

I can't buy a friend.


All I can say is that Grinder had "reason to believe".... that's a repeat I know. When people are in each other's company they notice things. My view is that they would have noticed, more so than not noticed.

...

I agree with Ken Dine here. I have done renovation type work for the last ten years and I cut some part of myself quite often. I installed a hot water heater today with another guy. We both cut ourselves a bit during the process.

I noticed his cut and he noticed mine. But within an hour I doubt that anybody was going to notice either cut. Cuts made by slicing disappear quickly and Guede's cuts were on the bottom of his hands. I see no reason to expect that somebody would have noticed them.

A lot of evidence has been put forth that Guede cut himself during the crime. Perhaps it falls short of proof but assuming that I understand the arguments and evidence presented here it looks very likely to me that Guede cut himself with his knife and left his blood at the crime scene.