Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

No special knowledge needed. From her e-mail home it looks like the investigators were quite fixated on the "vaseline":





It looks like Prof Vinci was the first to think about using alternative lighting on that pillowcase (in May 2009). There's no mention of any further analysis in the original report or in the court presentation.



There's a picture of it in this document.

And just for the record, seemingly the only one to remember Raffaele Sollecito saying "they found her body covered in vaseline" is Marco Zaroli.

Given the seeming theatricality of the crime scene, smashed window with boulder under chair, seemingly thrown from inside the room, judging by trajectory, lack of glass shards outside, dent on inner shutter, Filomena's clothes half heartedly thrown about, the hand mark on the wall, Mez' horrifically posed body (like something out of the Boston Strangler), it's little wonder cops puzzled as to what was the 'meaning' of the empty lip-balm jar, which also appeared to have been posed 'for show'.

Of course, Vaseline is associated with sex lubricants. Some use it as a spermicide (these people are generally called parents, later). Amanda claimed in her email to the world that cops asked her if Mez indulged in anal sex, which I find a strange question, if true. It seems Silenzi might have done.

It is a moot point as to whether the stain on the pillow is spermatozoa or Vaseline. Rape is defined in most countries as 'penile penetration' and the fact of Rudy's epilithial cells (skin), but not DNA obtained from spermatozoa, already incriminates Rudy. Ejaculating outside the body doesn't add to the crime one way or the other. Lack of testing is to Raff's advantage, as Rudy is already damned (assuming it was unconsented, and from the bruising found by the pathologists and gynaecologist, it almost certainly was).

All three were already charged with 'aggravated murder' on grounds of the violent sexual assault, so the stain on the pillow, whilst of academic interest, doesn't add to the legal argument, although it is noted the defence did not submit a request for semen testing until after the trial, no doubt knowing full well it was merely for show and that the court would dismiss it, as not new evidence (i.e., not known of, nor could have been known of as of the time of the trial, and, in addition, had a reasonable chance of success in overturning the verdict).

 

[Vixen]

Nope. That 99% accurate memory failed you again. She wrote nothing in her Nov. 4 email about this. However, on the night of Nov. 6, after her arrest, she did write this in her statement to the police:

"However, I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure. I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I am not sure about and I know they are important to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much. One thing I do remember is that I took a shower with Raffaele and this might explain how we passed the time. In truth, I do not remember exactly what day it was, but I do remember that we had a shower and we washed ourselves for a long time. He cleaned my ears, he dried and combed my hair. "

I guess my definition of "gushing" (and that of any dictionary) is different than yours. Your use of such unnecessary hyperbole does not make you any more credible. Notice that she makes a point of saying she doesn't remember what night it was that they showered together so your claim that she showered "3 times in 36 hours" is also unfounded.

Firstly, you claimed Amanda had 'very fine hair' and that's why it dried quickly. From photos. it is not apparent her hair is particularly fine at all,even if it does have a 'flyaway' look in the crimescene photos, thanks to lack of grooming. It is probably 'medium' (=normal - just like most people's). I dare say it was somewhat porous, given the hair lightener Amanda used, but it doesn't look particularly damaged in the photos.

Having said that, it could have been washed at 11:00 and dried by 2:00pm in the open air. It doesn't look newly washed IMV. At the trial, Mignini doesn't believe it either, asking why she needed to wash her hair again, having already done so the previous evening at Raff's. In court Amanda admitted there was no heating at the cottage, she did not turn it on; it was cold, she can't remember if she turned on the light. She admitted she did not use the bidet, and nor had done so for a few days. In her detailed email home to her address book, she did not mention the bathmat shuffle at all, yet by the time of her trial it has become an integral part of her scripted story.

In addition, she had to go to the front of the cottage to the 'laundry room' to access the hairdryer. Mignini asked why she didn't just shower in Raff's shower, which she agreed was warm, and have him dry her hair, as she claims he did at an unspecified time when he scrubbed her clean, including cleaning out her ears and fine -leaning and brushing her hair. Her answer, that she needed to change was a bit lame, given she went there to change, without shower on college days, having bathed at Raff's.

In his initial police statement 5 Nov 2007 Raff claimed:

QA I don’t remember if we had sex that night.
QA The following morning around 10:00 we woke up, she told me she wanted to go home and take a shower and change clothes.
QA In fact at around 10:30 she went out and I went back to sleep. When she went out that morning to go to her house, Amanda also took an empty bag telling me she needed it for dirty clothes.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...7_Statement_to_the_Police#English_translation

He doesn't even remember if he had sex, so much for your claim it was a sex shower.

From Raff having told Amy, Mez' friend, that Amanda said she didn't have a shower because of the blood in the bathroom, who testified under oath and we have no reason to disbelieve her, even if it is hearsay, as she could just as easily said Amanda told her, if she was less than honest, we have Raff understanding the importance of Amanda's story and confirming it in his police statement.

However, Amanda testified a couple of times that Raff was asleep when she awoke, and it strikes one as odd she would speak to a sleeping person and he would hear it.

LG:
Now we come to the morning of Nov 2nd. What did you do the next morning, when you woke up?
AK:
So, when I woke up, I don't remember what time it was, but I think around 10, 10:30, I was there and I saw that Raffaele was still sleeping, so I watched him for a little while, then I said, okay, I'm going home to take a shower and change, and when I come back, we'll go, because we had this plan to go to Gubbio, because it was a holiday that day, there was no school for me, or anyway I was going to skip it. [Laughs.] Anyway, I wanted to go see Gubbio. So, I left his house, and when I got near my house, I saw that the door was open. And I thought, strange, because usually we had to lock that door, but I thought, if someone didn't close it properly, obviously it would open.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Testimony

GCM:
Sorry, why did you go back to via della Pergola to take a shower and you have told us, answering a question, I don't know if it was yesterday or this morning, that you had taken a shower in the evening at Corso Garibaldi in Raffaele Sollecito's house? Why on earth didn't you do the same thing again, especially since you were planning to go to Gubbio?
AK:
Because first of all I wanted to change my clothes, which were at my house, then I really didn't like Raffaele's shower, because you had to clean the whole bathroom after taking [156] a shower, because the shower leaked. Therefore I preferred my own shower.
GCM:
I am aware that in the e-mail which you sent to your friends you talk of Raffaele Sollecito washing your hair, brushing it, drying it. On the other hand, on this occasion this shower and hair washing … you go to … via della Pergola, to your house in via della Pergola, you take the shower in the small bathroom and then the hairdryer you find in the other bathroom.
AK:
In the big bathroom.
GCM:
And then why wash your hair again? That is, in via della Pergola there is this difficulty, two difficulties, you do it alone and you do it using another bathroom, another hairdryer from there. And then why do you re-wash your hair which was washed the evening …
AK:
I'm used to washing my hair every day, every time I go …
GCM:
And why not do this at Raffaele Sollecito's house?
AK:
Because I don't … because I did …
GCM:
No, why didn't you wash your hair, and let Raffaele Sollecito dry it for you rather than doing it yourself alone the next day?
AK:
He hasn't got the equipment for doing hair, so … I mean a hairdryer for example.

-http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox%27s_Testimony-

GCM:
One was a bit more closed than the other. Now, what sort of heating do you have in via della Pergola?
AK:
Heating?
GCM:
Yes.
AK:
Not much I remember my room was often cold, so I had a rug on the floor. Honestly I haven't turned on any form of heating in my …
GCM:
When you arrived at ten o'clock, you didn't turn on any heating?
AK:
I have never …
GCM:
So, you found the heating off that morning?
AK:
I didn't look at any type of heating. [160]
GCM:
Was the house warm when you entered?
AK:
No, no it was …
GCM:
It was cold.
AK:
Yes, that's true.
GCM:
The door was wide open, it was cold.
AK:
Yes.
GCM:
Is there any heating in the bathroom?
AK:
In the bathroom?
GCM:
Yes.
AK:
I've never used any heating in the bathroom, so …
GCM:
It was cold in the bathroom then.
AK:
Yes, fairly.
GCM:
Was Raffaele's house warm? What about the bathroom, was it heated?
AK:
Yes.
GCM:
Now, when you took the shower did you use other sanitaryware? I think you have already said that you didn't use the bidet on that occasion.
AK:
On that occasion no.
GCM:
When was the last time you used the bidet in the small bathroom, the one where you took the shower?
AK:
Well, the last time I used the bidet …
GCM:
If you remember. Otherwise usually you take a shower so you don't need to ... [161]
AK:
I know that that time I didn't use the bidet and so the last time I used the bidet must have been if not the day before, then the day before that.
GCM:
So that day anyway you didn't use it, but the day before or an earlier day.
AK:
Yes.
GCM:
Did you use the bathroom light switch? Did you turn it on? Did you press it on, and then press it off? Did you put the light on in the bathroom?
AK:
Ah, the light?
GCM:
Yes.
AK:
I don't remember if I turned it on or not.
GCM:
You don't remember. Well, another thing I'd like to ask you, you have said that you noticed that there had been a theft, a broken window etcetera.
AK:
Well I thought so, yes.
GCM:
You went into your room to see if anything was missing and you were reassured, your computer was there.
AK:
Yes.
GCM:
When you made this check, didn't you notice that your desk lamp was missing?
AK:
I didn't look for the lamp.
GCM:
But were you looking for something special on this occasion?
AK:
I looked to see if the computer was there.
GCM:
You looked only to see if the computer was there or not. [162]
AK:
Yes, because the computer was the most important thing for me.

So you see the interesting questions that arise. In particular, the mixed DNA in the bidet must have happened at the time of the murder, as Amanda confirms she had not used it for a few days (if at all, actually).

 

[Bill Williams]

Given the seeming theatricality of the crime scene, smashed window with boulder under chair, seemingly thrown from inside the room, judging by trajectory, lack of glass shards outside, dent on inner shutter, Filomena's clothes half heartedly thrown about, the hand mark on the wall, Mez' horrifically posed body (like something out of the Boston Strangler), it's little wonder cops puzzled as to what was the 'meaning' of the empty lip-balm jar, which also appeared to have been posed 'for show'.

Right. You've really got this nailed down with "proof", rather than hyperbolic conjecture. Right.

It is a moot point as to whether the stain on the pillow is spermatozoa or Vaseline. Rape is defined in most countries as 'penile penetration' and the fact of Rudy's epilithial cells (skin), but not DNA obtained from spermatozoa, already incriminates Rudy. Ejaculating outside the body doesn't add to the crime one way or the other. Lack of testing is to Raff's advantage, as Rudy is already damned (assuming it was unconsented, and from the bruising found by the pathologists and gynaecologist, it almost certainly was).

The presumed semen should have been tested BEFORE Rudy was on the scene or before anyone was suspected. Testing the stain is part of investigating the crime.

The baffling thing about those of little brain who let the cops off the hook on this, is...... they let the cops off the hook on this. What it proves is that yu have little interest in solving this - so long as you can vilify innocents for truly bizarre reasons.

This on is at the top of the list - and I'd suggest that any impartial reader who reads what you write will know codswollop when they read it.

All three were already charged with 'aggravated murder' on grounds of the violent sexual assault, so the stain on the pillow, whilst of academic interest, doesn't add to the legal argument, although it is noted the defence did not submit a request for semen testing until after the trial, no doubt knowing full well it was merely for show and that the court would dismiss it, as not new evidence (i.e., not known of, nor could have been known of as of the time of the trial, and, in addition, had a reasonable chance of success in overturning the verdict).

Wow. Talk about bending over backwards to make a nonsensical argument.

 

[bagels]

Firstly, you claimed Amanda had 'very fine hair' and that's why it dried quickly. From photos. it is not apparent her hair is particularly fine at all,even if it does have a 'flyaway' look in the crimescene photos, thanks to lack of grooming. It is probably 'medium' (=normal - just like most people's). I dare say it was somewhat porous, given the hair lightener Amanda used, but it doesn't look particularly damaged in the photos.

Having said that, it could have been washed at 11:00 and dried by 2:00pm in the open air. It doesn't look newly washed IMV. At the trial, Mignini doesn't believe it either, asking why she needed to wash her hair again, having already done so the previous evening at Raff's. In court Amanda admitted there was no heating at the cottage, she did not turn it on; it was cold, she can't remember if she turned on the light. She admitted she did not use the bidet, and nor had done so for a few days. In her detailed email home to her address book, she did not mention the bathmat shuffle at all, yet by the time of her trial it has become an integral part of her scripted story.

In addition, she had to go to the front of the cottage to the 'laundry room' to access the hairdryer. Mignini asked why she didn't just shower in Raff's shower, which she agreed was warm, and have him dry her hair, as she claims he did at an unspecified time when he scrubbed her clean, including cleaning out her ears and fine -leaning and brushing her hair. Her answer, that she needed to change was a bit lame, given she went there to change, without shower on college days, having bathed at Raff's.

In his initial police statement 5 Nov 2007 Raff claimed:


http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...7_Statement_to_the_Police#English_translation

He doesn't even remember if he had sex, so much for your claim it was a sex shower.

From Raff having told Amy, Mez' friend, that Amanda said she didn't have a shower because of the blood in the bathroom, who testified under oath and we have no reason to disbelieve her, even if it is hearsay, as she could just as easily said Amanda told her, if she was less than honest, we have Raff understanding the importance of Amanda's story and confirming it in his police statement.

However, Amanda testified a couple of times that Raff was asleep when she awoke, and it strikes one as odd she would speak to a sleeping person and he would hear it.


http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Testimony


-http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox%27s_Testimony-




So you see the interesting questions that arise. In particular, the mixed DNA in the bidet must have happened at the time of the murder, as Amanda confirms she had not used it for a few days (if at all, actually).

Some dumb cops took too long finding and arresting the man that raped and murdered their vic so you are destined to spend the rest of your life thinking about 12 meaningless hours in two random peoples lives. Funny thing that.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

David Anderson, former Professor of Medicine at the Chinese University in Hong Kong, and Nigel Scott, who's written at length on the case from an innocentisti perspective, have an interesting new book out next week:

A new perspective on why false charges occur, proceed and persist which looks at the roles of psychopathology, confirmation bias, false confessions, the media and internet among other causes. Puts lack of empathy at the fore in terms of police, prosecutors and others whilst considering a wide range of other psychopathological aspects of false convictions. Based on first-hand knowledge or involvement (David Anderson was Stefan Kiszko’s endocrinologist and attended both his and the Knox/Sollecito trial).

What drives false but serious criminal charges and why do police and prosecutors often persist against those wrongly in the dock? As this book shows—by looking at three high profile cases, those of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (Italy), Stefan Kiszko (UK) and Darlie Routier (USA)—motive forces are a mind-set in which psychopathy (what the authors charitably term ‘constitutional negative empathy’) may be present and in which confirmation bias (the need to reinforce a decision once made or lose face) plays a large part.

Darlie Routier is still on death row in Texas despite overwhelming evidence that her conviction for killing her own child is false, whilst Knox, Sollecito and Kiszko have been vindicated by the highest and best of authority and compelling evidence. The authors show how wholly unfounded rumours still persist in the Knox/Sollecito case due to hostile media and internet trolling. In the Routier case they advance a new theory that the killings (two in all) were in fact the work of a notorious serial killer.

‘In the light of all this, questionable trial procedures need to be overhauled, with much greater recognition of (their) imperfections and of the general imbalance in favour of the prosecution. Greater weight needs to be given…to estab*lishing real, rather than merely judicial, truth’—(Chapter 11).

 

[Vixen]

David Anderson, former Professor of Medicine at the Chinese University in Hong Kong, and Nigel Scott, who's written at length on the case from an innocentisti perspective, have an interesting new book out next week:

Would this be the same ghoulish Nigel Scott who escorted Raff to Mez' graveside, even before the appeals had been heard?

Neither left any flowers and Nigel had the temerity to criticise the then temporary grave marker, calling the plot 'scruffy' on twitter.

This man is reckless and seriously deluded. Why would he volunteer to take Raff, one of Mez' alleged murderers, to her last resting place?

 

[Wilson85]

So IMO Guede left the cottage stealthily, pulling the door closed behind him and quickly moving either up the driveway or down into the bushes and scrubland below. Subsequently (and unknown to Guede, who would have believed he had secured the door on the latch) the door moved open again - to the position where Knox found it the next morning.

Here is a pic of the door:
amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/Crime%20Scene%20Photos%20November%202-3/dsc_0016.jpg
I don't see a reason why a person (Rudy, who is not aware of the defect) would lock this kind of door with the key...

 

[Wilson85]

From Raff having told Amy, Mez' friend, that Amanda said she didn't have a shower because of the blood in the bathroom, who testified under oath and we have no reason to disbelieve her, even if it is hearsay, as she could just as easily said Amanda told her, if she was less than honest, we have Raff understanding the importance of Amanda's story and confirming it in his police statement.

[sorry my bad English - I am not native speaker]

The conversation between Amy and Raffaele was short after the discovery of the body. So Raffaele knew Amanda's story of the events in the morning. I see two scenarios:

1) Let's assume they are guilty: They prearranged the story. They made up a story with a shower and a hair-dryer. Both very important details in their story as it explains the discovery of the blood and the poop. Now just a few minutes after the discovery of the body they have a discrepancy (on these important details) in the story they invented just hours before.

2) They are not guilty: Amanda came back from the cottage and told Raffaele that she noticed strange things in the cottage. The shower is a meaningless detail in the story and there is a misunderstanding regarding having/not having a shower due to the language barrier. The used hair-dryer was not even mentioned.

For me the guilt scenario is VERY unlikely. Raffaele isn't that stupid. And scenario two likely since we know that there is often a discrepancy in e.g. witness statements, especially on unimportant details.

Or could you (Vixen) provide another guilt scenario that explains the discrepancy in their story of the events in the morning of 2nd Nov?

 

[Vixen]

[sorry my bad English - I am not native speaker]

The conversation between Amy and Raffaele was short after the discovery of the body. So Raffaele knew Amanda's story of the events in the morning. I see two scenarios:

1) Let's assume they are guilty: They prearranged the story. They made up a story with a shower and a hair-dryer. Both very important details in their story as it explains the discovery of the blood and the poop. Now just a few minutes after the discovery of the body they have a discrepancy (on these important details) in the story they invented just hours before.

2) They are not guilty: Amanda came back from the cottage and told Raffaele that she noticed strange things in the cottage. The shower is a meaningless detail in the story and there is a misunderstanding regarding having/not having a shower due to the language barrier. The used hair-dryer was not even mentioned.

For me the guilt scenario is VERY unlikely. Raffaele isn't that stupid. And scenario two likely since we know that there is often a discrepancy in e.g. witness statements, especially on unimportant details.

Or could you (Vixen) provide another guilt scenario that explains the discrepancy in their story of the events in the morning of 2nd Nov?

As we say in England, Wilson85, you have it 'arse over tit'.

The perpetrators spent the night setting up the staged scene, cleaning up (you note the hallway has no visible blood stains, with Rudy's feint against the terracotta floor [=red floor]; there is no blood on the outside of Mez' door - yet there is a streak of diluted blood within the door frame, which the cleaners overlooked, and indicating there had been fresh blood there - there are no bloody footprints leading up to the bathmat, as one would expect.

Amanda had just spent the night emailing her friends in the USA describing her shower with Raff in great detail (ears, hair, etc). Do people normally write to their address book contacts and say, hey guys, I just have a session in the shower with my partner!? The shower likely happened during the murder night with the two oF them - nobody else had the key to the door, who was around that weekend. Stefanoni believed the drips of blood in the bathroom, almost pure at the cotton bud box and becoming more diluted as it gets to the bidet, was the result of the murder knife being held over it and rinsed. You note mixed in with Mez' blood was Amanda's DNA, with more of Amanda's, when it is Mez' who had bled to death, indicating Amanda was also bleeding to match the volume of DNA. In court, Amanda confirmed she had not used the bidet for a few days (...if ever).

In her intricately detailed email home, she does not mention anything about shuffling along on her bath mat. That only came after her lawyers appraised her of the forensics coming out,. She sent them an 'explanation' in a letter and lo! the bathmat shuffle was born. There were sporadic footprints in the hallway compatible with hers and Raff's highlighted by the luminol, a presumptive test, which police use to detect recent contact with fresh blood. There is no way the police could have faked these results, as it is all done under night light, the footsteps otherwise invisible.

Having carefully let Rudy's excrement remain in the other toliet, Amanda had to dream up a story explaining how she would know about it, and perhaps account for the bathroom's obvious recent use, so the story of the early morning shower was born.

How would Amanda know the faeces was left by one of the perps?

How would she know Mez' was behind the door, locked in? You recall, Raff tried to break it down. (The police believe to retrieve Amanda's lamp on the floor still in there.) Amanda claimed to the police a locked door meant Mez was away.

If she's innocent? An innocent person simply would not shower in a freezing cold cottage with the front door wide open, a smashed window which can be seen as you walk towards the front door and an obvious bloody footprint on the bathmat. Raff and Amanda did not even bother to investigate further until twenty minutes after Filomena urged her to. Hmm. Yes, of course.

 

[Bill Williams]

1) Let's assume they are guilty: They prearranged the story. They made up a story with a shower and a hair-dryer. Both very important details in their story as it explains the discovery of the blood and the poop. Now just a few minutes after the discovery of the body they have a discrepancy (on these important details) in the story they invented just hours before.

<..... sinister deletia .....>​

Or could you (Vixen) provide another guilt scenario that explains the discrepancy in their story of the events in the morning of 2nd Nov?

There is no rational guilter-scenario which explains why the two would simply make up a story about Amanda returning alone to the cottage at 10:30 am for a shower and a hair-dryer. They were already there once the postal police arrived (circa just before 1 pm, Nov 2 - cf. Massei) and it's already a matter of record that Raffaele had called the Carabinieri just prior to the postal's arrival. Why complicate the story with yet another of an earlier return - they could have told the postals about the pooh and the blood without a prior visit.

Add to this - why would a guilty-pair have called everyone (Filomena, Raffaele's sister) prior to Amanda returning to the cottage a second time, this time with Raffaele?

If all that were true in a guilter scenario, it would point to rank amateurism on their part where panic was setting in - most assuredly NOT the demeanor of kids who later would/could pull the wool over investigators' eyes at interrogation.

The guilt scenario simply cannot have it both ways.

The challenge for any remaining guilter nut-case theorist is to explain why they could be so ham-handed and amateurish when you need them to be, and then a virtual MI6 false-flag op the next.

 

[Vixen]

There is no rational guilter-scenario which explains why the two would simply make up a story about Amanda returning alone to the cottage at 10:30 am for a shower and a hair-dryer. They were already there once the postal police arrived (circa just before 1 pm, Nov 2 - cf. Massei) and it's already a matter of record that Raffaele had called the Carabinieri just prior to the postal's arrival. Why complicate the story with yet another of an earlier return - they could have told the postals about the pooh and the blood without a prior visit.

Add to this - why would a guilty-pair have called everyone (Filomena, Raffaele's sister) prior to Amanda returning to the cottage a second time, this time with Raffaele?

If all that were true in a guilter scenario, it would point to rank amateurism on their part where panic was setting in - most assuredly NOT the demeanor of kids who later would/could pull the wool over investigators' eyes at interrogation.

The guilt scenario simply cannot have it both ways.

The challenge for any remaining guilter nut-case theorist is to explain why they could be so ham-handed and amateurish when you need them to be, and then a virtual MI6 false-flag op the next.

The clue is here:

QA In fact at around 10:30 she went out and I went back to sleep. When she went out that morning to go to her house, Amanda also took an empty bag telling me she needed it for dirty clothes.Raff statement to Perugia police 5 Nov 2007 http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...7_Statement_to_the_Police#English_translation

 

[Bill Williams]

The clue is here:

QA In fact at around 10:30 she went out and I went back to sleep. When she went out that morning to go to her house, Amanda also took an empty bag telling me she needed it for dirty clothes.Raff statement to Perugia police 5 Nov 2007 http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...7_Statement_to_the_Police#English_translation

LOL!

Speaking of ham-handed.

The issue, Vixen, is why would a guilty RS/AK self-report ANY of this? Once again you are simply confirming the illogic of your position. Why say ANYTHING about Amanda's solo trip mid-morning, if they'd just spent the night trying to cover up their involvement in a crime? (You don't get this, do you.)

They have to at one moment be world-class, virtually MI6-trained crime-geniuses worthy of pulling the wool over the eyes of seasoned interrogators, and in the next moment a couple of goofy kids who couldn't organize a smokers' area at a tobacco convention.

You have to deal with both issues or you will simply be laughed at - esp. when you quote the fake-wiki about things (things which you, apparently, do not understand).

 

[Stacyhs]

Firstly, you claimed Amanda had 'very fine hair' and that's why it dried quickly. From photos. it is not apparent her hair is particularly fine at all,even if it does have a 'flyaway' look in the crimescene photos, thanks to lack of grooming. It is probably 'medium' (=normal - just like most people's). I dare say it was somewhat porous, given the hair lightener Amanda used, but it doesn't look particularly damaged in the photos.

Having said that, it could have been washed at 11:00 and dried by 2:00pm in the open air. It doesn't look newly washed IMV. At the trial, Mignini doesn't believe it either, asking why she needed to wash her hair again, having already done so the previous evening at Raff's. In court Amanda admitted there was no heating at the cottage, she did not turn it on; it was cold, she can't remember if she turned on the light. She admitted she did not use the bidet, and nor had done so for a few days. In her detailed email home to her address book, she did not mention the bathmat shuffle at all, yet by the time of her trial it has become an integral part of her scripted story.

In addition, she had to go to the front of the cottage to the 'laundry room' to access the hairdryer. Mignini asked why she didn't just shower in Raff's shower, which she agreed was warm, and have him dry her hair, as she claims he did at an unspecified time when he scrubbed her clean, including cleaning out her ears and fine -leaning and brushing her hair. Her answer, that she needed to change was a bit lame, given she went there to change, without shower on college days, having bathed at Raff's.

In his initial police statement 5 Nov 2007 Raff claimed:


http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...7_Statement_to_the_Police#English_translation

He doesn't even remember if he had sex, so much for your claim it was a sex shower.

From Raff having told Amy, Mez' friend, that Amanda said she didn't have a shower because of the blood in the bathroom, who testified under oath and we have no reason to disbelieve her, even if it is hearsay, as she could just as easily said Amanda told her, if she was less than honest, we have Raff understanding the importance of Amanda's story and confirming it in his police statement.

However, Amanda testified a couple of times that Raff was asleep when she awoke, and it strikes one as odd she would speak to a sleeping person and he would hear it.


http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Testimony


-http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox%27s_Testimony-




So you see the interesting questions that arise. In particular, the mixed DNA in the bidet must have happened at the time of the murder, as Amanda confirms she had not used it for a few days (if at all, actually).

1) "Firstly, you claimed Amanda had 'very fine hair' and that's why it dried quickly."

No, I never said that. I never mentioned the texture of her hair nor gave a reason for it drying "quickly". I said hair that length dries in two hours. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute this falsehood to your 99% accurate memory failing you (yet) again, rather than it being an out and out lie.

2) "I dare say it was somewhat porous, given the hair lightener Amanda used, but it doesn't look particularly damaged in the photos."

I never said it "looked" damaged. I said dyed hair is easily identified under a microscope as is shed vs broken hair.


3) "At the trial, Mignini doesn't believe it either, asking why she needed to wash her hair again, having already done so the previous evening at Raff's."

Amanda made it clear in her Nov 6 statement (not email) that she didn't know what night she and Raff had showered together, which Mignini ignored. Nor does she confirm it was the night of Nov 1 in her testimony. She also answered that she washed her hair every day. Or do you find that unusual?

4) "In court Amanda admitted there was no heating at the cottage"

No, she did not. She said she had not turned it on. You claimed the cottage had no heating, not that it was not turned on. How is not turning on the heat evidence of not taking a hot shower?

5)."She admitted she did not use the bidet, and nor had done so for a few days.

Your use of the leading term "admitted" is noted. You "admit" something you have previously denied or are reluctant to say. She never said she had used the bidet within the last few days. She confirmed, not admitted, that she hadn't used it in the last day or two, not "few days". Exactly how is that relevant anyway? DNA does not disappear in a few days.

6) "In her detailed email home to her address book", she did not mention the bathmat shuffle at all, yet by the time of her trial it has become an integral part of her scripted story."

Nor did she mention the proven phone call to her mother in her email. Is that evidence it did not happen? In her trial, she is asked about it. Prof. Vinci also found evidence on the underside of the mat supporting her story. "Scripted"; nice touch!

7) "In addition, she had to go to the front of the cottage to the 'laundry room' to access the hairdryer."

And this is relevant to anything exactly how? Raff didn't have a hair dryer as per Amanda's testimony. Just how hard is it to walk down a hall to use a dryer? I had to laugh at Mignini's implication that it was somehow odd that she didn't just let Raffaele take care of the "difficulty" of washing her hair! Yep, it's just soooooo hard to wash your own hair.

8) "Her answer, that she needed to change was a bit lame, given she went there to change, without shower on college days, having bathed at Raff's."

Seeing how her clothes she had changed from were lying on her bed, it's a bit lame to imply she didn't change her clothes that morning. What is your source that she bathed at Raff's and then went home to change on college days? She had showered at her own place the morning of Nov 1, too, so why not Nov 2?

9) "the mixed DNA in the bidet must have happened at the time of the murder, as Amanda confirms she had not used it for a few days (if at all, actually). "

Scientifically and factually false. DNA cannot be time stamped. Mixed DNA is common amongst people who live together and does not have to be left at the same time. But you know that; you just won't admit it.

"(if at all, actually)." Again, nice touch! I note that you failed to address the fact that no one, let me repeat that, no one who lived in that cottage or the English girls or Mignini, or Napoleoni or any identified source, ever said Amanda was not a clean person, had dirty hair or smelled in any way. But carry on as I find your desperate need to disparage Amanda in any way possible amusing.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen wrote "If she's innocent? An innocent person simply would not shower in a freezing cold cottage with the front door wide open, a smashed window which can be seen as you walk towards the front door and an obvious bloody footprint on the bathmat. Raff and Amanda did not even bother to investigate further until twenty minutes after Filomena urged her to. Hmm. Yes, of course. "

Amanda said per her testimony that it was "fairly" cold, not "freezing cold" in the bathroom. Why the need for such hyperbole? Because the truth isn't damning enough.

The front door was not "wide open". Per her testimony, she shut it but didn't lock it fearing that one of her roommates had gone out momentarily without their key as supported by the door not having been locked.

The broken window was not visible as the door was shut. Unless, of course, Amanda had x-ray vision like Superman.

She didn't see the blood on the bathmat until AFTER she had showered.

Twenty minutes is not a long time to go back and take another look around as there was no evidence of a break-in or of any other crime at the time. Why rush back without eating breakfast and cleaning up? You are giving it more urgency than it warranted at the time coming from a knowledge of facts they did not have.

 

[Vixen]

LOL!

Speaking of ham-handed.

The issue, Vixen, is why would a guilty RS/AK self-report ANY of this? Once again you are simply confirming the illogic of your position. Why say ANYTHING about Amanda's solo trip mid-morning, if they'd just spent the night trying to cover up their involvement in a crime? (You don't get this, do you.)

They have to at one moment be world-class, virtually MI6-trained crime-geniuses worthy of pulling the wool over the eyes of seasoned interrogators, and in the next moment a couple of goofy kids who couldn't organize a smokers' area at a tobacco convention.

You have to deal with both issues or you will simply be laughed at - esp. when you quote the fake-wiki about things (things which you, apparently, do not understand).

Well, they have certainly managed to pull the wool over your eyes.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen wrote "If she's innocent? An innocent person simply would not shower in a freezing cold cottage with the front door wide open, a smashed window which can be seen as you walk towards the front door and an obvious bloody footprint on the bathmat. Raff and Amanda did not even bother to investigate further until twenty minutes after Filomena urged her to. Hmm. Yes, of course. "

Amanda said per her testimony that it was "fairly" cold, not "freezing cold" in the bathroom. Why the need for such hyperbole? Because the truth isn't damning enough.

The front door was not "wide open". Per her testimony, she shut it but didn't lock it fearing that one of her roommates had gone out momentarily without their key as supported by the door not having been locked.

The broken window was not visible as the door was shut. Unless, of course, Amanda had x-ray vision like Superman.

She didn't see the blood on the bathmat until AFTER she had showered.

Twenty minutes is not a long time to go back and take another look around as there was no evidence of a break-in or of any other crime at the time. Why rush back without eating breakfast and cleaning up? You are giving it more urgency than it warranted at the time coming from a knowledge of facts they did not have.

Of course there's no urgency, if you know the perps aren't going to be walking back through the door. You can take your time and potter around.

 

[Stacyhs]

Of course there's no urgency, if you know the perps aren't going to be walking back through the door. You can take your time and potter around.

I see you're assigning motives and emotions to Amanda and Raffaele. Or is that only something to accuse others of doing?

But they would know that Laura might come back unexpectedly or that Filomena might call her boyfriend to go and check things out. Nope. They are so sure of themselves that they just take their time pottering about rather than making sure they had cleaned up everything like the blood in the bathroom and the bathmat, right? Illogical.

I see that you fail to address any of the other four false statements you made.

By the way, care to quote me where I said Amanda had "fine" hair and that's "why it dried so quickly"?

 

[Stacyhs]

Well, they have certainly managed to pull the wool over your eyes.

Why not answer Bill's question?

"Why say ANYTHING about Amanda's solo trip mid-morning, if they'd just spent the night trying to cover up their involvement in a crime?"

 

[LondonJohn]

Vixen wrote "If she's innocent? An innocent person simply would not shower in a freezing cold cottage with the front door wide open, a smashed window which can be seen as you walk towards the front door and an obvious bloody footprint on the bathmat. Raff and Amanda did not even bother to investigate further until twenty minutes after Filomena urged her to. Hmm. Yes, of course. "

Amanda said per her testimony that it was "fairly" cold, not "freezing cold" in the bathroom. Why the need for such hyperbole? Because the truth isn't damning enough.

The front door was not "wide open". Per her testimony, she shut it but didn't lock it fearing that one of her roommates had gone out momentarily without their key as supported by the door not having been locked.

The broken window was not visible as the door was shut. Unless, of course, Amanda had x-ray vision like Superman.

She didn't see the blood on the bathmat until AFTER she had showered.

Twenty minutes is not a long time to go back and take another look around as there was no evidence of a break-in or of any other crime at the time. Why rush back without eating breakfast and cleaning up? You are giving it more urgency than it warranted at the time coming from a knowledge of facts they did not have.

Yeah, more arrant bull-manure hyperbole from the usual suspect.

It most certainly wasn't "freezing" in Perugia that morning. Far from it. IIRC there was some research on this forum into recorded temperatures in Perugia on that day, and it was about 10C-14C (around 50F-58F) that morning. Chilly perhaps, but in no way definable as "freezing".

The front door was not "wide open" when Knox returned that morning. It was nothing more than slightly ajar - as the door always was if it was firstly pulled shut without securing it with the mortice lock and then its own weight and the wind caused it to open slightly. Knox assumed at first that one of the other housemates had either popped out (garbage or errand) or that, at worst, someone had left the cottage without remembering to lock with the mortice lock. Knox pulled the door closed behind her but did not lock it, on account of her belief that a housemate might imminently be returning from her short errand.

Romanelli's window was broken when Knox approached and entered the cottage, yes. But the exterior shutters were pulled closed on that window (by Guede, once he'd entered the cottage via that route), so it was impossible for anyone to see the broken window from outside the cottage. And from the inside, Romanelli's room was dark (closed exterior shutters, remember) and her door was only partially open (and was maybe fully shut at first). Nobody walking past that door, without any particular reason to look into Romanelli's room, would have noticed the broken window and the glass on the floor.

But other than that, Vixen's honest commitment to accuracy in research (aided by her extraordinarily good memory) is manifesting itself gloriously within this thread......

 

[LondonJohn]

Why not answer Bill's question?

"Why say ANYTHING about Amanda's solo trip mid-morning, if they'd just spent the night trying to cover up their involvement in a crime?"

In fairness, a guilty Knox might have wanted to mention this trip just in case any witnesses came forward to report having seen her travelling to and fro between Sollecito's apartment and the cottage that morning.

But it's moot anyhow. Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with the murder, nor any mythical post-murder miraculously-selective clean-up.