Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Annella]

To Vixen:.....You have a quote and a link to a deposition where she says the washing machine was running/warm when she arrived?

https://commentisfreewatch.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pigs-fly-1283389535.jpg

Edited by zooterkin: 

Edited for rule 5 - do not hotlink to images on other sites unless it is explicitly permitted.

 

[LondonJohn]

You have a quote and a link to a deposition where she says the washing machine was running/warm when she arrived?

I'm loving Vixen's portentous "You have been told...." construction! Lovely stuff!

And regardless of anything that anyone's "been told", the actual fact of the matter is that nobody attested at trial to the washing machine's contents being still warm at lunchtime on 2nd November. Of course in addition to that, there's zero quantitative evidence to support that thesis.

And think about this: if there were reliable evidence of the clothes still being warm at lunchtime on the 2nd (whether through definitive testimony, preferably from multiple sources, or from qualitative testing), then it would of course have formed a central plank of the prosecution argument and the convicting courts' motivations*. After all, Knox had never said she had put the washing machine on that morning, which would have been categorically disproven by still-warm contents at 1-2pm on the 2nd. And it would then not be hard to draw a reasonable inference that Knox was intentionally concealing having used the washing machine, and that the reason for that concealment could well have been that she was trying to clean incriminating items of Kercher's clothing etc.

* Assuming, of course, that that washing machine didn't have a "delayed start" function, such that Kercher could have loaded the machine on the evening of the 1st and set it to start at (say) 10am the following morning....

 

[Kauffer]

You have been told it was in Filomena's deposition.

AFAYAC All the police are liars. I am honoured you class me in the category of upright law and order, the good guys who keep detractors and subversives safe at night.

Cite it; show it; produce it; quote it. You have to produce evidence not merely assert it exists. Telling somebody it exists, even forcefully, does not prove it does.

You keep pedalling but get yourself nowhere.

Surely, an intelligent person, a mensa member can work all this out.

 

[Grinder]

5. So, who put her clothes into the washing machine? - HarryRag"s question

I would assume it was either Meredith or her. It seems the washing machine is not a big issue just yet; It may turn out to be. But there was no blood evidence. Unless they used bleach and/or peroxide, normal soap would not have erased the traces of blood. Romanelli’s deposition specific to the washing machine mentions the contents, etc. but not any reference to it being warm, just humid. The word “umido” which was used means humid, but sometimes could be mistaken as umido caldo… like humid hot weather.

This was from April 2009 StewartHome2000 PMF's, court reporter.

A little more:

I'm one of those people who think that this story is just a little too convenient. It is one of those either you believe it or you don't, because there are no witnesses (that we know of). For that matter, there are no witnesses who can say that AK took a shower when she said she did.

Me too.
It’s actually a pretty good story for here in Italy though. The marble floors are like black ice when wet, and I know people who have actually done that not to slip and drip all over the marble. I have seen roommate throw the towel on the ground and do the, as TM calls, “the bath mat shuffle”.

 

[Grinder]

A little more from SH2000:

I already have a couple of questions:

Only 8 questions?! Are you slippin?
Pray tell you say, interesting that you should ask, as she and the defense just so happened to have a response. I can only tell ya what she said, the prosecution claims and what I observed. Here ya go for better or worse.

1. Why did she have a shower in a blood-spattered bathroom, which had a very visible large bloody footprint on the blue bathmat?
She said she only saw the blood in the sink, but did not think muhc of it, let alone a murder.
Actually the bath mat that you have seen in pictures is enhanced. I have seen the actual picture of the mat next to the one in the papers which was saturated with color to enhance the image. To the viewer it jumps out…in the regular picture it’s much more subtle…almost like a light stain. Can't really blame her too much on that one.

2. Why didn't she notice the trail of bloody footprints leading up to the blue bath mat?
I dunno that there were any. The list of prints in the prosecution report taken described many (about 7-8 in total described in detail) but none in the bathroom leading to the mat.

 

[Grinder]

While I find some early reports interesting and valuable, I discount articles filled with errors whether the points are on either side. It seems here that posters if PI are given far more latitude.

An example of early information I find valuable is that the PLE were looking for a penknife as the murder weapon, as all information still points (NPI) to a much smaller knife than the kitchen model.

A report of Rudi's arrests that no confirmation has come forward in any form has no value to me. If someone with direct access to all or most of the defense documents would produce official records of his record of that would be of great value. Unfortunately, with the exception of MichaelB (AFAIK) others with access have moved on.

Vixen I still await any other case(s) in which a murder victim's DNA was found on the murder knife but the knife tested negative for blood.

I would also like to see where the prosecution used the warm and operating washing machine as a point to convict.

 

[Bill Williams]

While I find some early reports interesting and valuable, I discount articles filled with errors whether the points are on either side. It seems here that posters if PI are given far more latitude.

Not that I've seen. But it's a useful myth to perpetuate, I suppose.

 

[bagels]

One of my interests in this case has been the public perception of AK as created by the media, mostly out of thin air, and the pure visceral hatred people have been manipulated into harboring. This thread is a great time capsule of the events surrounding the breaking of the case in real time as people react to the (largely fabricated) reports of the murder.

A choice quote regarding AK when she claimed her statements were the result of coercion: "Spoiled little b***ch. I haven't been so angry at a suspect since Chester Stiles."

For reference, Chester Stiles raped a toddler on video. This was always the real PR super tanker.

 

[davefoc]

...

Vixen I still await any other case(s) in which a murder victim's DNA was found on the murder knife but the knife tested negative for blood.

...

I think this is a significant part of the kitchen knife story. If somebody really believed that the DNA on this knife was from Kercher's blood and was placed there at the time of the murder it is hard to imagine they would not have done everything possible to find evidence of human blood because that would have been very good evidence that the knife was used in the murder. The fact that the knife was not disassembled in an effort to find remnants of blood is a pretty good indication that the person doing this forensic examination didn't expect to find evidence of blood because they knew the DNA result was bogus.

The fact that probable kitchen detritus was found strongly suggests that some sort of super cleanup that removed all traces of blood but left little bits of kitchen detritus in place didn't happen.

I realize that this point has been made before and my point is not original, but I thought it deserved a mention as part of the current small discussion of the Kitchen knife issues.

As to the washing machine stuff:
Wow. What is your point Vixen? That you can misrepresent evidence and prove to yourself based on your misrepresentations that AK/RS are guilty? Doesn't the fact of being categorically wrong slow you down?

You don't seem to understand a very simple notion. If the evidence you believe exists of AK/RS guilt actually existed there would be no controversy, no court reversals, no Kercher murder discussions. It would be just accepted fact that they were guilty. So what in the world makes you think that some sort of smoking gun evidence exists which is unknown to the prosecutors and everybody else that follows the case but is known to you? When you think you're on to something that points strongly to guilt do you ever ask yourself how could this be true and yet so many people believe they are innocent?

Did you decide to just try to forget your mixed blood claims when you were confronted with overwhelming evidence that they were wrong? You do remember your promises of a response after you were repeatedly shown that your theories were based on false assumptions? Perhaps you could go back and review that discussion and post the response that you promised to make numerous times?

 

[Bill Williams]

Wow. What is your point Vixen? That you can misrepresent evidence and prove to yourself based on your misrepresentations that AK/RS are guilty? Doesn't the fact of being categorically wrong slow you down?

You don't seem to understand a very simple notion. If the evidence you believe exists of AK/RS guilt actually existed there would be no controversy, no court reversals, no Kercher murder discussions. It would be just accepted fact that they were guilty. So what in the world makes you think that some sort of smoking gun evidence exists which is unknown to the prosecutors and everybody else that follows the case but is known to you? When you think you're on to something that points strongly to guilt do you ever ask yourself how could this be true and yet so many people believe they are innocent?

Did you decide to just try to forget your mixed blood claims when you were confronted with overwhelming evidence that they were wrong? You do remember your promises of a response after you were repeatedly shown that your theories were based on false assumptions? Perhaps you could go back and review that discussion and post the response that you promised to make numerous times?

Add to this - where is the hue and cry within Italy since March 27? Aside from Machiavelli from Italy and Vixen from Britain spinning this stuff.....

Where are the Italian heavyweights? Where's the controversy exposed in the press, how Marasca had been bullied by Bruno?

Where's the equivalent to Hellmann defending his own acquittals, basically saying that both the 2013 ISC and the later Nencini court were writing fiction?

Aside from a lone Italian columnist Machiavelli found from just after the 2015 exonerations, there's been nothing. Nada. Nil. Niente. Zilch. Zero.

It's almost as if people in Italy are saying, "I guess this is one case where dietrologia doesn't apply. There actually IS nothing behind that there is no evidence. Maybe we DO need to look into all DNA convictions since 1986!"

People should take a peek at the Italian version of Wikipedia's Murder of Meredith Kercher. For one thing, it is positively pedestrian compared to the English version. For another, aside from the occasional anti-American hint, both the main article and the talk-page are straight down the line: "Sollecito and Knox didn't do it."

Apparently, in Italy this case is now seen as not complicated. And the whole country seems to have moved on. No one is arguing warm-dryers, or what Knox did on Hallowe'en night. Mignini is seen as a buffoon, who's been promoted out of harms' way.

 

[RoseMontague]

There are 3 Filomena depositions and I just looked at all of them. There are two that mention the washing machine in reference to being asked again about who the clothes belonged to. I'll have an Italian reader take a look but I'm not seeing anything else.

A.D.R. In the following days, when I went coli Sotio the Judicial Police at the scene in order to verify if they missed the knives in the house, 110 noted that ne1 bathroom more 'great, where is located the washing machine, within it there were rags not mine. Similarly the iodine ~
I can rule out that they were of Laura, since the latter, being two days before the game
his body was found, he would definitely say something about it or to lay them out or
to wash them. I say this because on Laura prevailed with some sort of agreement finalized mutually to avoid that the clothes remain long in the washing machine in case of absence of a the two

The year 2007, addi '07 in November at 15:30, in the offices of the Flying Squad
Peri ~ already, before we the undersigned officers PG V.Q.A Edgrado GIOBBI, V.Q.A. Domenico
Giacinto PROFAZIO, V-Sov. Daniele MOSCATELLI, is present in the named object, which
is called on to recognize the role alliinterno found the washing machine located in the apartment,
A.D.R. the clothes that show me I can safely say that noil belong to me or to
Laura, but some are of Meredith, while others do not recognize them .----------------
A.D.R. As for the towels lilac I can say that are not mine, nor of Laura; 110 seen them,
in the past, in the small bathroom, but I can not say if they were rokrietà Meredith or Ainanda. . ,,

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/witness-depositions/

We have those those three OCR'd now, hopefully should be downloaded soon.

 

[Vixen]

I think this is a significant part of the kitchen knife story. If somebody really believed that the DNA on this knife was from Kercher's blood and was placed there at the time of the murder it is hard to imagine they would not have done everything possible to find evidence of human blood because that would have been very good evidence that the knife was used in the murder. The fact that the knife was not disassembled in an effort to find remnants of blood is a pretty good indication that the person doing this forensic examination didn't expect to find evidence of blood because they knew the DNA result was bogus.

The fact that probable kitchen detritus was found strongly suggests that some sort of super cleanup that removed all traces of blood but left little bits of kitchen detritus in place didn't happen.

I realize that this point has been made before and my point is not original, but I thought it deserved a mention as part of the current small discussion of the Kitchen knife issues.

As to the washing machine stuff:
Wow. What is your point Vixen? That you can misrepresent evidence and prove to yourself based on your misrepresentations that AK/RS are guilty? Doesn't the fact of being categorically wrong slow you down?

You don't seem to understand a very simple notion. If the evidence you believe exists of AK/RS guilt actually existed there would be no controversy, no court reversals, no Kercher murder discussions. It would be just accepted fact that they were guilty. So what in the world makes you think that some sort of smoking gun evidence exists which is unknown to the prosecutors and everybody else that follows the case but is known to you? When you think you're on to something that points strongly to guilt do you ever ask yourself how could this be true and yet so many people believe they are innocent?

Did you decide to just try to forget your mixed blood claims when you were confronted with overwhelming evidence that they were wrong? You do remember your promises of a response after you were repeatedly shown that your theories were based on false assumptions? Perhaps you could go back and review that discussion and post the response that you promised to make numerous times?

Hi Davefoc, if you look back on the thread you'll find it's Kauffer and Rose who brought up the subject of the washing machine. We dealt with this issue months ago.

In other words Kauffer set up a straw argument against which he argued against himself. Logical fallacy = strawman.

 

[Vixen]

While I find some early reports interesting and valuable, I discount articles filled with errors whether the points are on either side. It seems here that posters if PI are given far more latitude.

An example of early information I find valuable is that the PLE were looking for a penknife as the murder weapon, as all information still points (NPI) to a much smaller knife than the kitchen model.

A report of Rudi's arrests that no confirmation has come forward in any form has no value to me. If someone with direct access to all or most of the defense documents would produce official records of his record of that would be of great value. Unfortunately, with the exception of MichaelB (AFAIK) others with access have moved on.

Vixen I still await any other case(s) in which a murder victim's DNA was found on the murder knife but the knife tested negative for blood.

I would also like to see where the prosecution used the warm and operating washing machine as a point to convict.

Hi Grinder, I am sure I quoted a case, as did others. It's fruitless anyway, as each case has to be judged on its own merits.

As you are aware, the police forensically tested the washing machine clothes but found nothing relevant and the court didn't consider it prime evidence.

With over 498 forensic samples, it's a wise person who edits it down to a handful of specimen key evidence points.

 

[Mr Fied]

Most of the clothes were Mez' and Filomena was asked by police to separate hers from Mez'. No sign of Amanda doing any washing, despite supposedly having had a shower. Incidentally, Mignini told the court he didn't believe she'd had a shower for a minute.

Police believed Raff had a thorough shower there.

If so, what possible reason was there for putting the washing machine on?

Obviously they thought "We'll leave all Meredith's bloody clothes for the police to ignore, and wash anything that has no relation to the murder."

 

[Vixen]

If so, what possible reason was there for putting the washing machine on?

Obviously they thought "We'll leave all Meredith's bloody clothes for the police to ignore, and wash anything that has no relation to the murder."

They were not expecting the police to turn up when they did. Remember?


----

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

 

[Methos]

There are 3 Filomena depositions and I just looked at all of them. There are two that mention the washing machine in reference to being asked again about who the clothes belonged to. I'll have an Italian reader take a look but I'm not seeing anything else.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/witness-depositions/

We have those those three OCR'd now, hopefully should be downloaded soon.

It looks like those OCR's need a clean up:

A.D.R. Nei giorni a seguire, quando mi sono recata con la Polizia Giudiziaria sul luogo del delitto al fine di verificare se mancassero dei coltelli in casa, ho notato che nel bagno piu' grande, ove è situata la lavatrice, all'interno di quest'ultima erano presenti dei panni non miei. Allo stesso modo posso escludere che fossero di Laura, in quanto quest'ultima, essendo partita due giorni prima del ritrovamento del cadavere, mi avrebbe sicuramente detto qualche cosa al riguardo o per stenderli o per lavarli. Dico questo in quanto sul tema vigeva con Laura una sorta di accordo finalizzato reciprocamente ad evitare che i panni rimanessero a lungo nella lavatrice in caso di assenza di una delle due.

Google:

A.D.R. In the following days, when I went with the Judicial Police at the scene in order to check if they missed the knives in the house, I noticed that the bathroom more 'large, where there is the washing machine, within the latter there were not my cloths. Similarly I can rule out that they were of Laura, since the latter, being the match two days before his body was found, he would surely have said something about it or to lay them or wash them. I say this because on Laura prevailed with some sort of agreement for each to prevent the clothes remain long in the washing machine in case of absence of one of the two.

L'anno 2007, addi' 07 nel mese di novembre alle ore 15.30, negli Uffici della Squadra Mobile di Perugia, innanzi a noi sottoscritti Ufficiali di P.G. V.Q.A Edguado GIOBBI, V.Q.A. Domenico Giacinto PROFAZIO, V.Sov. Daniele MOSCATELLI, è presente la nominata in oggetto, la quale escussa per riconoscere i panni ritrovati all'interno della lavatrice situata nell'appartamento, riferisce:
A.D.R. dei panni che mi mostrate posso dire con sicurezza che non appartengono né a me né a Laura, ma alcuni sono di Meredith, mentre altri non li riconosco.
A.D.R. Quanto agli asciugamani di colore lilla posso dire che non sono miei, né di Laura; li ho visti, in passato, presso il bagno piccolo, ma non so dire se fossero, di proprietà di Meredith o di Amanda.

Google:

The year 2007, addi '07 in November at 15:30, in the offices of the Flying Squad in Perugia, before we the undersigned officers PG V.Q.A Edguado GIOBBI, V.Q.A. Domenico Giacinto PROFAZIO, V.Sov. Daniel MOSCATELLI, is nominated in the object, which is called on to recognize the clothes found in the washing machine located in the apartment, he reports:
A.D.R. cloths that show me I can safely say that do not belong to me or to Laura, but some are of Meredith, while others do not recognize them.
A.D.R. As for the towels lilac I can say that are not mine, nor of Laura; I saw them in the past, in the small bathroom, but I can not say if they were owned by Meredith and Amanda.

 

[RoseMontague]

It looks like those OCR's need a clean up:

Much better, thank you.

 

[Mr Fied]

They were not expecting the police to turn up when they did. Remember?

Well, for a start they called them, so they probably were expecting them.

But that doesn't answer the question.

What did they have to gain by washing Meredith's clothes that were unconnected to the murder? They couldn't have known the crack forensic team would leave bloodied clothes and underwear to get moved around and contaminated for weeks on end.

 

[Planigale]

They were not expecting the police to turn up when they did. Remember?

----

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

Just how stupid a comment can you write?
Except they had called the police!
Except they had phoned Filomena to say that her room had been broken into, and the assumption would be she would call the police!
Except they had phoned a serving police officer who might have called in the local police!

So three different ways they might expect the police.

 

[Kauffer]

I love Mexican/Texan/Cajun. When I was in Tennessee I had the most amazing catfish meal, and another cajun jambalaya concoction mmm, mmm. I even liked that restaurant chain (forget the name) of the type that we in England love to look down on. Local residents petitioned against having a MacDonalds in Hampstead, for example. Today I are be eating a Waitrose ten beans (after already having soaked and bolied them) with rice, peppers, spring onion, tomatoes and sauce, with mozarella grating.

Brits were very resistant to ID passes because of some paranoia about privacy. Biometric ID is largely voluntary in most EU countries and I can see people are resistant to fingerprinting because of the association with criminal records. But hey, it was only your index finger. As I know I will never commit a crime and being proud of my nationality, it was no problem for me. It's the same size as a credit card and my plastic drivers licence, so easier to carry around than a passport.

I would imagine police compared the palm print of several suspects. If Rudy's was already on file, I am not sure why that would be.

I expect it would be more of a "good likeness" as blood would smear any ridge points, as with the footprint on the bathmat.

I give weight to early newspaper reports as they are often folks reporting from the frontline, ground zero, before all the PR guys and lawyers come along to add "spin". It's the human fly on the wall angle. In this case, we get to see police thinking and why they were especially suspicious of Raff, who no way could claim police racism.

This has been your problem. You have cited many old newspaper reports of claims made about evidence in the case before it came to trial. These reports were substantially wrong. The evidence did not exist. For example, that the washing machine was either on or warm when the police arrived, that Raffaele's bloody shoe prints were found anywhere or Amanda's in Kercher's room, or matched hair samples, etc etc

Kauffer, the warm washing machine was Filomena's testimony. As she lived there, is a person of excellent character and had no motive to lie, then why not give it weight?

It is a matter of forensic records that various strands of blond and brown hair were found, together with long black hair (presumed Mez') as well as short African type hair.

So, not newspaper hacks "making it all up".

Hi Davefoc, if you look back on the thread you'll find it's Kauffer and Rose who brought up the subject of the washing machine. We dealt with this issue months ago.

In other words Kauffer set up a straw argument against which he argued against himself. Logical fallacy = strawman.

Actually, here is the record of the beginning of this thread: As you can see, I mentioned the washing machine briefly as part of a set of examples where you have cited newspaper reports as if they were evidence in the case and reliable, without cross referencing to actual testimony or other real documentary evidence. And what did you do in response? You latched on to the washing machine example and... cited a newspaper report AGAIN as evidence to support your position, which rather proved the point I was making, and which Rose, I and others have demonstrated was completely wrong.

So, to sum up: You cite newspaper reports of evidence which does not exist. When challenged to produce the evidence, you cannot do so, but instead, respond with blind assertion or else claim that the newspaper concerned or the journalist or both should be trusted because....well, apparently, just because you think so.

Your position is laughable.