Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Using the broadest
faculty of evaluation, the remanded judge will have to remedy the flaws in argumentation
by conducting a uniform and global analysis of the evidence, through which it will have to
be ascertained whether the relative ambiguity of each piece of evidence can be resolved, as
each piece of evidence sums up and integrates with the others in the overall assessment.

Vixen - read this again from the Chieffi report, from your non sequitor of a post above.

Note that acc. to the subsequent ISC panel, Judge Nencini failed in what Chieffi set out as his task.

As Marasca's synoptic section proved, Nencini failed to demonstrate how each piece of evidence sums up and integrates with the others in the overall assessment.

Thanks for reminding us of how Chieffi's marching orders for Nencini. The issue for us now has nothing to do with Hellmann or even Massei for that matter.

It is this - did Nencini fairly convict. He did not. One of the reasons as presented in Marasca's section 6.2 is that Nencini said TOD was not relevant to the defendents alibi.

Marasca said that in law it was. The virtual certainty of an early TOD meant that Raffaele's alibi was virtually secure - and as such Nencini should have acquitted.

Thanks for reminding us of the task the Chieffi section set out. It makes Marasca-Bruno more clear.

 

[Methos]

[...]

Internal consistencies leaving it wide open for Rudy to apply for a review:

2.1.15* ‐*Lack of reasoning and manifest illogicality of the finding of non‐existence of the staging of a crime: [the Prosecutor General argues that] the acquittal of the two defendants of the offence of staging, according to the formula “the fact did not occur”, did not follow from a negative assessment of their penal responsibility, but was instead the consequence of the paradoxical recognition of the responsibility of Guede, who was not charged in the present trial, for having committed the attempted burglary. However, Guede was convicted definitively with the decision received pursuant to Article 238bis Criminal Procedure Code for, among other things, the crime of aggravated murder, but not for staging a crime; this staging was admitted [as fact] in the judgment [of Guede], but deemed attributable to the co‐offenders in the crime.

Yep, it's compelely illogical and unreasonable to not simply import the "guilty" verdict against the current defendants made in a trial that wasn't against them, unbelievable that the judge thought that he could get away with actually holding an appeals trial for the defendands, when they have actually already been convicted in the trial held against their alleged complice... Italy should think about removing Art. 27 and 111 from the constitution. I just love how those people claiming to be what a certain Liz Houle claims to be called "justice seekers", when they are just getting off on smearing Knox and Sollecito...

The Chieffi verdict is:
Among no less than 17 scathingly critical reasons for expunging Hellmann includes:

Please list them. Last time I looked the number was 14 and only two of them were on matters of law (36I and Aviello) the others saw Chieffi going into fact finding mode inventing a new kind of logic, even misquoting judge Hellmann to make his point. (Just for the record: judge Hellmann says on the matter of the staged break-in, that "even" Rudy Guede might have had a reason to stage one. Chieffi misreads this as "only" Rudy Guede...). I wonder how long it will take to write "Heroin is not a Hallucinogen" into the cp and the cpp...

But the most obvious strain in the interpretation is certainly recognisable in the
undervaluing of the declarations of no less than three witnesses, in harmony with one
another and absolutely independent.


It is in fact a principle of living law
that the judge of merit is entitled to evaluate the evidence of the trial in order to decide
whether a request for an expert report is warranted; as long as it is properly justified, this
decision cannot be censured on the grounds of legitimacy (Section VI, 21.9.2012, n.456).

Therefore, [65] when the Prosecutor General and the Counsel for the Civil Parties submitted a request to complete the analysis on the basis of the scientific explanation provided by Prof. Novelli, a geneticist of undisputed repute recognized by the [appeal] court itself (page 79 statement of reasons), regarding the availability of instruments capable of reliably analysing quantities even smaller than ten picograms in diagnostic fields (such as embryology) in which the need for certainty is no less important than in the courts, the Hellmann Court of Appeal refused on the assumption that the methods mentioned by Prof. Novelli were “in an experimental phase” (page 84), thereby freely interpreting and misrepresenting the testimony of the professor, who on the contrary mentioned the use of such techniques in diagnostic domains in which the certainty of the result is essential.
Novelli and Torricelli ignored.

the court
reiterated the considerations expressed in the expert report, which in truth were the
subject of severe disagreement by professors Novelli and Torricelli, consultants to the
Prosecutor General and the Civil Parties, whose authority was completely ignored. Prof.
Novelli did agree with the fact that there are protocols and recommendations, but added
that above all the technician’s competence and common sense must come into play,
(hearing 6.9.2011, page 59 of transcript), otherwise every DNA analysis from 1986
onwards could be called into question. Not only that, but he added that taking Sollecito’s
alleles from trace 165B and making a statistical investigation, one finds a probability of one
in 3 billion, meaning that there is one person in every 3 billion compatible with that
profile. Also Prof. Torricelli, who participated as a reviewer in the preparation of the
guidelines invoked by the experts, clarified that it is permissible to depart from protocol
out of necessity on a case‐by‐case basis. She also gave precise arguments underlining the
fact that on the bra clasp (trace 165B) the important factor was the Y haplotype, which was
very clear in all its 17 loci; so much so that inserting these 17 loci into the database yielded
no hits other than Sollecito, whereas if only 11 loci were inserted, they found 31 people
with the same haplotype. These observations, made by experts with the same amount of
expertise as the ones that wrote the expert report, were not even quoted in the [appeal]
statement of reasons, let alone dealt with, in view of their undisputable evidentiary
importance, a way of operating [modus operandi] that demonstrates an unacceptable
incompleteness in the evaluation, which affects the correct application of the rules for
interpreting evidence

Raff's DNA:

Laboratory contamination was also excluded by these experts. Prof. Novelli said that the
origin or vehicle of any contamination must be demonstrated: he added that at the
Scientific Police laboratory he had seen the 255 samples [68] extracted, had analysed all the
profiles, and had not found any evidence of contamination; he ruled out in an absolutely
convincing manner that a contamination agent could be present intermittently, or that
DNA could remain suspended, and later fall down in a specific place. Dr Stefanoni (the
technical consultant who wrote the report as per article 360 CCP), who was also heard in
the appeal trial, reiterated that there was no evidence of any contamination: the analyses
on the knife had been carried out a full 6 days after the last [previously tested] DNA trace
of the victim; the investigations had been at a stand‐still for 6 days, as proven in the SAL
records (at first wrongly indicated as unavailable), a lapse of time that even the expert
Vecchiotti deemed sufficient to avoid lab contamination. In particular, regarding Sollecito,
the saliva swab was extracted and tested on 6 November 2007, sample 165B was extracted
on 29 December 2007; another profile related to Sollecito’s shoe was on 17 December 2007.
From 17 December 2007 to 29 December, there were 12 days in which no trace from
Sollecito was analysed. Sollecito’s DNA was never found alone [at the crime scene], as the
only trace of his that was collected and analysed was the one on the cigarette stub found in
the ashtray of the kitchen in Knox’s flat, mixed with Knox’s DNA

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the challenged judgment must be annulled due to the numerous
deficiencies, contradictions and manifest lack of logic indicated above. Using the broadest
faculty of evaluation, the remanded judge will have to remedy the flaws in argumentation
by conducting a uniform and global analysis of the evidence, through which it will have to
be ascertained whether the relative ambiguity of each piece of evidence can be resolved, as
each piece of evidence sums up and integrates with the others in the overall assessment.
The outcome of such an organic evaluation will be decisive, not only to demonstrate the
presence of the two defendants at the crime scene, but also possibly to clarify the
subjective role of the people who committed this murder with Guede, against a range of
possible scenarios, going from an original plan to kill to a change in the plan which was
initially aimed only at involving the young English girl in a sexual game against her will
to an act with the sole intention of forcing her into a wild group erotic game which
violently took another course, getting out of control.

Source: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Supreme_Court_of_Cassation_of_Italy_Sentencing_Report

Please, stop "shouting". Bigger font sizes and colouring aren't an argument, just my 0.02 Euro

In effect, much of Marasca's report contradicts Chieffi's findings, which, with the exception of ordering the unanalysed knife sample to be tested and various witnesses reheard, are res judicata,, which the Fifth Chamber had no power or jurisdiction to overturn.

In effect Marasca simply says that "you can't convict without evidence", and (paraphrasing) that "this nonsense, based on no evidence should have never gone to trial", and that "is" very well into the jurisdiction of the "Fifth Chamber", a chamber that is in no way a inferior or limited one...

 

[Bill Williams]

Using the broadest
faculty of evaluation, the remanded judge will have to remedy the flaws in argumentation
by conducting a uniform and global analysis of the evidence, through which it will have to
be ascertained whether the relative ambiguity of each piece of evidence can be resolved, as
each piece of evidence sums up and integrates with the others in the overall assessment.

In effect Marasca simply says that "you can't convict without evidence", and (paraphrasing) that "this nonsense, based on no evidence should have never gone to trial", and that "is" very well into the jurisdiction of the "Fifth Chamber", a chamber that is in no way a inferior or limited one...

It is deceptively simple - the reasons why the Chieffi panel in 2013 overturned the Hellmann acquittals. "Simple" that is, if one steers clear of Chieffi's obvious forays into what the ISC had no business in ascertaining.... namely, the facts.

It is as simple as this. Chieffi charged the Nencini court with remedying the Hellmann flaws - the flaws of law.

1) Hellmann should not have allowed Conti-Vecchiotti to make the de facto legal decision about 36I.
2) as you say, Methos, Aviello needed to be properly vetted as to who might have tainted his evidence
3) none of the lower courts, Massei's included, had given the "sex game gone wrong" motive a fair hearing.​

If one boils down Chieffi to its simplest - one sees immediately why Nencini later in early 2014 should never have convicted.

The task was this: the relative ambiguity of each piece of evidence can be resolved, as each piece of evidence sums up and integrates with the others in the overall assessment.
What did Nencini's court hear?

1) 36I once tested added nothing to any notion of guilt
2) Aviello, now properly examined and cross-examined, added nothing to any notion of guilt, much less any notion of witness tampering
3) rather than reviewing the "sex game gone wrong" theory, Crini proposed yet another, and Nencini decided up yet another again.​

The Marasca/Bruno court then inherits the mess that this case always was. After reviewing Nencini's reasons for convicting, the Marasca/Bruno court revisits the remit it received from the Section 1 panel 2 years earlier.....

(to resolve) the relative ambiguity of each piece of evidence, as each piece of evidence sums up and integrates with the others in the overall assessment.​

Suddenly, Section 9 of the M/B report makes sense. They actually DID try to sum up and integrate each piece of evidence into an overall assessment and found......

10. The intrinsic contradictory nature of the evidence, emerging from the text of the appealed verdict, in essence undermines the connective tissue of the same, leading to its annulment.
In fact, in the presence of a scenario marked by many contradictions, the referral judge should not have come to a verdict of guilt, but - as previously observed – should have reached a verdict of not guilty, given Article 530, section 2, Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.​

So, thanks need to go to Vixen for once in her life actually posting a source. Yet, as always, it now tends to prove the exact opposite of what Vixen intended - we can see for ourselves how each court tried to manage this "connective tissue of the evidence" issue.

 

[Stacyhs]

How does this fit in with your cod theory 'Rudy did it all by himself'?

Somebody left strands of long fair hair behind. The forensics are silent as to whether they were tested for hair colourants.

Fits just fine with my "cod theory" (whatever that is). Yes, strands were left behind, but not necessarily by the person they belonged to. Could they have belonged to the woman with long blonde hair that Guede was seen dancing with the night of Halloween and brought in on his jacket or hoodie? As the mother of a daughter with long blonde hair, I can attest that it sticks to everything. It's all over my house. I've ruined several vacuums due to it getting wrapped around the beaters and had to have a ball of long, blonde hair surgically removed from one of my dog's stomachs . Or perhaps they were brought in by Meredith previously on her clothing. After all, the two girls whose apartment she had just left, Amy and Robyn, both had dark blonde hair. We know they had also been in Meredith's cottage from their testimony. Laura Mezzetti also had blonde hair. But these hairs couldn't possibly belong to any of these girls, right? Because only Amanda would shed hair.

As far as I'm aware, there are no records at all indicating that these hairs were ever even examined. If not, then it's just another example of the incompetence of the technical police. If they were, no root must have been found as that would provide DNA. Finding no root would also indicate that these where hairs that had naturally shed, not been "pulled out by their roots" since shedding leaves the root in the scalp.

 

[Stacyhs]

Paolo Bruno

According to wiki is 81 and was a minister under Andreotti, Bongiorno's great hero, and whom she got off Mafia charges.

https://translate.google.co.uk/tran...it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_Bruno&prev=search

Well, if Marasca is 'too old' at 70 (Staceyhs said this, I believe) what hope for his pal, who also had Bongiorno get him off Mafia charges.

A more openly corrupt process than Bruno browbeating the Fifth Chambers late into the night to acquit his ex-counsel's clients, is hard to imagine.

Even Bill Williams has to keep scouring the MR, in his quest to make sense of it.

No, I never said Marasca was "too old". I think you are referring to our discussion regarding retirement age for judges in Italy. I did give his age but never said he was "too old" for anything. I guess that's just another example of that 1% you don't remember accurately.

By the way, there is no "e" in my name. Never has been.

 

[Stacyhs]

You really don't get that the issue of the shower is (a) did it happen on the morning of 2 Nov - remember, on a freezing cold November morning with no heating and the front door flapping open - and a thin sports jacket, or was it, (b) to explain away her pottering about at the cottage for almost two hours including changing into a white skirt, especially given she had an extensive shower with Raf scrubbing her all over the afternoon before.

It has nothing at all to do with sex, as you claim. There was a particularly grisly murder that same night. The killer/s would have been splattered with blood.

Your diversions into the habits of the American housewife are ridiculous as Amanda was not known for good hygiene habits, with Mez having the embarrassing task of having to 'talk' to her about it.

Oh, I get it! You are attempting to skirt the issue by bringing up nonsense.
1) So it was a cold November morning. So what? She wasn't showering outside, but inside the cottage using hot water. Or don't the British shower on cold days? Ew.

2) Provide your source that the cottage had no heating. I highly doubt anyone would rent an apartment in a mountain town that had no source of heat!

3) There was no "flapping front door". Amanda closed the front door, but did not lock it in case the roommate she thought may have just gone out might come back (per her book).

4) She wasn't at the cottage for 2 hours. She showered, changed, and went back to Raffaele's, had breakfast, and then went back.

5) Having had a shower the afternoon before is irrelevant. I can only conclude that you find it somehow unnatural that someone would shower every day. Is not showering everyday, especially after having sex, a British cultural thing ? Ew. I had a shower this morning, and the morning before that, and the morning before that. And I plan on having another one tomorrow morning.

6) Yes, the killers would have been splattered with blood. Yet none of Meredith's blood got on the bottom of their shoes. Please, spare me the "woman's size 37" nonsense as more matching shoeprints would have been found if she had stepped in blood...just as there were of Guede's. None of their clothing had Meredith's blood on it and none of Meredith's blood was found in Raffaele's car or in his apartment or in the girls' shower where they would have naturally cleaned up.

7) Did Meredith EVER complain about Amanda being personally dirty/smelling/ not washing? No. Did Laura or Filomena? No. Did Lumumba? No. Not even in his trashy tabloid article where he admittedly lied about her. Did the English girls? No. Did Marco? No. Did Luca? No. Did any of the boys downstairs? No. Did her classmates? No. Did her teachers? No. But you just cling to that "toilet" story for all you can because it's all you've got.

 

[Stacyhs]

The only person on planet earth that knew Amanda Knox was at the cottage that morning before noon is Amanda Knox. She didn't need to make up the story about the shower if she didn't want to. In fact, it seems like a stupid thing to make up.

Exactly. If Amanda and Raffaele were really guilty of killing Meredith, they would not have alerted anyone. They would have gone on their day trip to Gubbio as planned and had told Dr. Sollecito about the night before. They would have allowed Laura or Filomena to come home and find the body and distanced themselves as far as they could to divert suspicion.

 

[Vixen]

Yep, it's compelely illogical and unreasonable to not simply import the "guilty" verdict against the current defendants made in a trial that wasn't against them, unbelievable that the judge thought that he could get away with actually holding an appeals trial for the defendands, when they have actually already been convicted in the trial held against their alleged complice... Italy should think about removing Art. 27 and 111 from the constitution. I just love how those people claiming to be what a certain Liz Houle claims to be called "justice seekers", when they are just getting off on smearing Knox and Sollecito...


Please list them. Last time I looked the number was 14 and only two of them were on matters of law (36I and Aviello) the others saw Chieffi going into fact finding mode inventing a new kind of logic, even misquoting judge Hellmann to make his point. (Just for the record: judge Hellmann says on the matter of the staged break-in, that "even" Rudy Guede might have had a reason to stage one. Chieffi misreads this as "only" Rudy Guede...). I wonder how long it will take to write "Heroin is not a Hallucinogen" into the cp and the cpp...

Please, stop "shouting". Bigger font sizes and colouring aren't an argument, just my 0.02 Euro


In effect Marasca simply says that "you can't convict without evidence", and (paraphrasing) that "this nonsense, based on no evidence should have never gone to trial", and that "is" very well into the jurisdiction of the "Fifth Chamber", a chamber that is in no way a inferior or limited one...

Do you seriously believe Massei and Nencini convicted, 'without evidence'?

 

[Vixen]

It is deceptively simple - the reasons why the Chieffi panel in 2013 overturned the Hellmann acquittals. "Simple" that is, if one steers clear of Chieffi's obvious forays into what the ISC had no business in ascertaining.... namely, the facts.

It is as simple as this. Chieffi charged the Nencini court with remedying the Hellmann flaws - the flaws of law.

1) Hellmann should not have allowed Conti-Vecchiotti to make the de facto legal decision about 36I.
2) as you say, Methos, Aviello needed to be properly vetted as to who might have tainted his evidence
3) none of the lower courts, Massei's included, had given the "sex game gone wrong" motive a fair hearing.​

If one boils down Chieffi to its simplest - one sees immediately why Nencini later in early 2014 should never have convicted.

The task was this: the relative ambiguity of each piece of evidence can be resolved, as each piece of evidence sums up and integrates with the others in the overall assessment.
What did Nencini's court hear?

1) 36I once tested added nothing to any notion of guilt
2) Aviello, now properly examined and cross-examined, added nothing to any notion of guilt, much less any notion of witness tampering
3) rather than reviewing the "sex game gone wrong" theory, Crini proposed yet another, and Nencini decided up yet another again.​

The Marasca/Bruno court then inherits the mess that this case always was. After reviewing Nencini's reasons for convicting, the Marasca/Bruno court revisits the remit it received from the Section 1 panel 2 years earlier.....

(to resolve) the relative ambiguity of each piece of evidence, as each piece of evidence sums up and integrates with the others in the overall assessment.​

Suddenly, Section 9 of the M/B report makes sense. They actually DID try to sum up and integrate each piece of evidence into an overall assessment and found......

​

So, thanks need to go to Vixen for once in her life actually posting a source. Yet, as always, it now tends to prove the exact opposite of what Vixen intended - we can see for ourselves how each court tried to manage this "connective tissue of the evidence" issue.

Hellmann acquitted by looking at one or two bits of evidence piecemeal and ignoring others wholesale. Chieffi threw it out and upheld the prosecution's submissions its methods were legally illogical, begged the question and were a travesty.

Marasca reinstates Hellmann despite Chieffi already upholding the prosecution's appeal.

The defence did not put any new evidence forward, it simply reissued its previous appeal. It took two bites of the cherry, which is most irregular.

 

[Vixen]

Exactly. If Amanda and Raffaele were really guilty of killing Meredith, they would not have alerted anyone. They would have gone on their day trip to Gubbio as planned and had told Dr. Sollecito about the night before. They would have allowed Laura or Filomena to come home and find the body and distanced themselves as far as they could to divert suspicion.

Um, I rather suspect their day trip to Gubbio was interrupted by the arrival of the police.

The kids knew Filomena would probably be first back home/ It's not rocket science they realised questions would be asked as to how come Amanda saw nothing and reported nothing.

So they gave a few half-signals. Lied by omission.

 

[Vixen]

Fits just fine with my "cod theory" (whatever that is). Yes, strands were left behind, but not necessarily by the person they belonged to. Could they have belonged to the woman with long blonde hair that Guede was seen dancing with the night of Halloween and brought in on his jacket or hoodie? As the mother of a daughter with long blonde hair, I can attest that it sticks to everything. It's all over my house. I've ruined several vacuums due to it getting wrapped around the beaters and had to have a ball of long, blonde hair surgically removed from one of my dog's stomachs . Or perhaps they were brought in by Meredith previously on her clothing. After all, the two girls whose apartment she had just left, Amy and Robyn, both had dark blonde hair. We know they had also been in Meredith's cottage from their testimony. Laura Mezzetti also had blonde hair. But these hairs couldn't possibly belong to any of these girls, right? Because only Amanda would shed hair.

As far as I'm aware, there are no records at all indicating that these hairs were ever even examined. If not, then it's just another example of the incompetence of the technical police. If they were, no root must have been found as that would provide DNA. Finding no root would also indicate that these where hairs that had naturally shed, not been "pulled out by their roots" since shedding leaves the root in the scalp.

You're doing it again. You are projecting your own thoughts and motives onto Amanda. You think you are 'coming to Amanda's rescue'.

My sprog had long fair hair in his teens (natural), as a heavy metal fan, and he never left a hair anywhere.

So much for your 'explanation' as to how a long fair hair was found across the top of Mez' bag.

 

[Stacyhs]

As Amanda claims in her email to all that she was banging and shouting at Mez' door and she was alarmed by a glob of blood on the bathmat (which is obvious to anybody a footprint), it's all rather gruesome she hung around for a couple of hours, or so she claims.Police are sceptical about her whole story.

False. She left Raffaele's that morning between 10:00 and 11:00 (Fatal Gift of Beauty). Let's say she left at 10:30. Six minutes to the cottage. She looked around after finding the door open (10 min), showered 10 min), changed her clothes (5 min) , dried her hair (10 min) and left. She walked back to Raffaele's (6 min.) where he made her breakfast (30 min) and she told him about what she'd seen. Total time: 1 hour, 17 min. making it about 11:47. She called Filomena on the phone at 12:07. How does that put her at the cottage for "a couple hours"?

 

[Vixen]

Oh, I get it! You are attempting to skirt the issue by bringing up nonsense.
1) So it was a cold November morning. So what? She wasn't showering outside, but inside the cottage using hot water. Or don't the British shower on cold days? Ew.

2) Provide your source that the cottage had no heating. I highly doubt anyone would rent an apartment in a mountain town that had no source of heat!

3) There was no "flapping front door". Amanda closed the front door, but did not lock it in case the roommate she thought may have just gone out might come back (per her book).

4) She wasn't at the cottage for 2 hours. She showered, changed, and went back to Raffaele's, had breakfast, and then went back.

5) Having had a shower the afternoon before is irrelevant. I can only conclude that you find it somehow unnatural that someone would shower every day. Is not showering everyday, especially after having sex, a British cultural thing ? Ew. I had a shower this morning, and the morning before that, and the morning before that. And I plan on having another one tomorrow morning.

6) Yes, the killers would have been splattered with blood. Yet none of Meredith's blood got on the bottom of their shoes. Please, spare me the "woman's size 37" nonsense as more matching shoeprints would have been found if she had stepped in blood...just as there were of Guede's. None of their clothing had Meredith's blood on it and none of Meredith's blood was found in Raffaele's car or in his apartment or in the girls' shower where they would have naturally cleaned up.

7) Did Meredith EVER complain about Amanda being personally dirty/smelling/ not washing? No. Did Laura or Filomena? No. Did Lumumba? No. Not even in his trashy tabloid article where he admittedly lied about her. Did the English girls? No. Did Marco? No. Did Luca? No. Did any of the boys downstairs? No. Did her classmates? No. Did her teachers? No. But you just cling to that "toilet" story for all you can because it's all you've got.

Raff criticises Amanda in several places he couldn't understand why Amanda stayed at the cottage for such a long time.

Did Amanda mention in her book if she ever met anyone coming back in?

When one returns home with the door swinging open, surely the worry is who is inside, not outside?

You still don't get it about the shower. All you can think about is sex and the American way. Perhaps you need a cold shower. IMV both Amanda and Raff shared a shower together during the night, not when Amanda popped by at 10:30 in the morning. Hence the blood stain on the light switch and the cotton bud box. In her email home she gushes on about Raff cleaning her ears with a cotton bud and brushing out her hair. Her good scrub wasn't to do with sex, it was to do with her 'washing off Mez' blood', as decreed by Marasca. Fact.

 

[Bill Williams]

You still don't get it about the shower. All you can think about is sex and the American way. Perhaps you need a cold shower. IMV both Amanda and Raff shared a shower together during the night, not when Amanda popped by at 10:30 in the morning. Hence the blood stain on the light switch and the cotton bud box. In her email home she gushes on about Raff cleaning her ears with a cotton bud and brushing out her hair. Her good scrub wasn't to do with sex, it was to do with her 'washing off Mez' blood', as decreed by Marasca. Fact Factoid.

Fixed it for you.

How many times do you ignore that ISC sections do not decree facts?

 

[bagels]

Um, I rather suspect their day trip to Gubbio was interrupted by the arrival of the police.

The kids knew Filomena would probably be first back home/ It's not rocket science they realised questions would be asked as to how come Amanda saw nothing and reported nothing.

So they gave a few half-signals. Lied by omission.

All Amanda had to do was stop at the cottage to pick up some personal belongings for the country trip, stumble onto Meredith's corpse, contaminate the crime scene, and call the police. This is what 90% of killers would have done. The other 10% would have just left for the country trip so as to be nowhere near the crime scene, but not being smart enough to take advantage of the opportunity to contaminate it.

Amanda couldn't barge in on Meredith's body, because the door was locked, obviously by someone other than herself, since it prevented her from staging a discovery - something the killer trying to stage a discovery wouldn't have done. The obvious always escapes the PGP.

I'm not sure why Rudy locked the door, but I suppose when he went back into the room to get the keys it seemed in the moment a natural reaction to use them to hide the crime as long as possible.

 

[Vixen]

All Amanda had to do was stop at the cottage to pick up some personal belongings for the country trip, stumble onto Meredith's corpse, contaminate the crime scene, and call the police. This is what 90% of killers would have done. The other 10% would have just left for the country trip so as to be nowhere near the crime scene, but not being smart enough to take advantage of the opportunity to contaminate it.

Amanda couldn't barge in on Meredith's body, because the door was locked, obviously by someone other than herself, since it prevented her from staging a discovery - something the killer trying to stage a discovery wouldn't have done. The obvious always escapes the PGP.

I'm not sure why Rudy locked the door, but I suppose when he went back into the room to get the keys it seemed in the moment a natural reaction to use them to hide the crime as long as possible.

Really? So how come (a) there are bloody hand prints on the inside of the door, but not the outside? (b) Why did Rudy leave the front door swinging open if he is so concerned about locking up before he goes? (c) How come his footprints point outwards, away from the door? Yet luminol shows both Amanda's and Raff's bare footprints in blood (as the standard forensic test for the recent presence of blood) facing towards Mez' door in the hallway?

 

[Vixen]

Fixed it for you.

How many times do you ignore that ISC sections do not decree facts?

It is a fact it decreed Amanda washed off Mez' blood at the murder scene'.

Clear now?

 

[Bill Williams]

Really? So how come (a) there are bloody hand prints on the inside of the door, but not the outside? (b) Why did Rudy leave the front door swinging open if he is so concerned about locking up before he goes? (c) How come his footprints point outwards, away from the door? Yet luminol shows both Amanda's and Raff's bare footprints in blood (as the standard forensic test for the recent presence of blood) facing towards Mez' door in the hallway?

Their foot tracks were not "in blood". Apologies, I couldn't fix it for you in your text.

 

[bagels]

Really? So how come (a) there are bloody hand prints on the inside of the door, but not the outside? (b) Why did Rudy leave the front door swinging open if he is so concerned about locking up before he goes? (c) How come his footprints point outwards, away from the door? Yet luminol shows both Amanda's and Raff's bare footprints in blood (as the standard forensic test for the recent presence of blood) facing towards Mez' door in the hallway?

Rudy surely closed the front door, but didn't realize it wouldn't stay shut without being locked since he was just a burglar and didn't live there. His recent embellishment about the doorbell and the key in the Italian TV interview makes me wonder if he really did think about another roommate coming home and Meredith not being able to answer, so he left the front door unlocked for them, with Meredith's door locked, giving the appearance of her being home but sleeping. Although I have no firm theory.

The police trying to match the luminol to both Amanda and Raffaele was really funny in its transparency. They both just happen to get blood on their right feet and not their left feet, and they clean both the stains in exactly the same way so they wash away below the threshold of TMB and DNA.

I think the luminol stains surely all belong to the same person, though I'm not certain who. They don't serve any real help in solving this crime though. Luckily, they don't need to, since the crime is more than solvable without them.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is a fact factoid it decreed Amanda washed off Mez' Meredith's blood at the murder scene'.

Clear now?

Fixed it for you. ISC does not decree facts.