Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Samson]

I disagree. Here's why.

1.) The burglaries do not have as much in common as people have come to believe. Of the six burglaries alleged against Guede, only two involve possible climbs, along with the breaking of windows: the one at the Brocchi/Palazzoli law firm, and the one at Via Della Pergola.

Two others (Christian Tramontano and Guede's neighbor, Maria Diaz) involved Guede gaining access through an open or unlocked lower window. It is not known how Guede gained access for the two burglaries at the Del Prato Nursery in Milan, but there was no broken glass and presumably no climbing (he was living it up on the first floor).

2.) There are some notable differences between the burglary at the Brocchi Law Offices and the one at the cottage. Access to the window (which was actually a door) at Brocchi's was much easier than access to Filomena's room. The door was located on a balcony, and metal grates below the balcony appear to make it a very easy climb: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/law_office_window.jpg

In the law office burglary, the burglar, presumably Rudy, carried the rock with him to the balcony, used it to break a window, and then left it on the balcony. Obviously at Via Della Pergola, the rock went flying through the glass into the room.

At the law offices, the burglar laid two men's business jackets on the floor to avoid stepping on broken glass. At Via Della Pergola, there is not much on the floor to prevent someone from stepping on glass, yet there is no crushed glass as if someone had walked on it. There are no footprints, little debris, and there is a plaid cloth bag standing directly in the path from the window to the bedroom door, which surely would have been kicked out of the way by someone stumbling through there in the dark. (Photos on Injustice In Perugia -- scroll about two-thirds of the way down this page: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html.)

3.) There has never been any definitive evidence of forced entry through the window. It would be impossible to climb a wall like the one outside Filomena's room and not get your feet and hands dirty and dusty. Yet there are no tracks or fingermarks; what little loose material or dust appears on the floor of the room could easily have come from the rock after it hit the floor and rolled into the bag, or from the broken pieces of window and window trim.

4.) There are two examples of people trying to show that it would be easy to climb into Filomena's window, but neither of them shows anyone actually doing it. One is a photo, and one is a video. The photo shows a guy with his feet on the window below and his hands on the ledge of Filomena's window, but it does not show him pulling himself up.

The video is edited at exactly the moment the climber (different guy from the photo) would have pulled himself up. It cuts from him starting to pull himself up, to the next scene, where he is sitting on the window sill. It does not show how much difficulty it may or may not have taken him to get to the windowsill. Why not?

5.) Filomena is a liar and a low-life who turned against Amanda. She said her room was tidy, but obviously, it was not. It does not look like a room that has been rummaged through -- it looks like the room of a young woman who leaves stuff on the floor.

6.) Rudy going in through the window does not survive the test of Occam's Razor. I think most people here would agree Rudy was a relatively unmotivated fellow -- that's why he started burglarizing in the first place, allegedly. He is an opportunist, not a go-getter.

Why go in a window when you can kick in a door with a faulty lock? Why go in a window without a balcony, when there is a window with a balcony just around the other side of the house, where no one can see you from the street? Why go in an upper window of a place you haven't been to, when you can go into a lower window of a place you're familiar with, and that you know has pot plants?

Why break in at all, when you are just out wandering around, and one of the occupants of the cottage happens to walk up at the same time and, distracted by trying to call her Mum, says, um, yeah, I guess you can use the bathroom?

7.) There is no basis whatsoever, other than Rudy's own account, for believing that he was sitting on the toilet when something happened -- in his version, Amanda and Raffaele came in, and in "our" version, Meredith came in. Again, with Occam's Razor -- if you just climbed in a window to commit a burglary and you're interrupted, why not just be quiet for awhile, and then jump back out the window? Maybe because you didn't come in through the window in the first place.

That's interesting, MaryH, are you suggesting he threw the rock just to make sure no one was home and gained access with Meredith when she got home?

 

[Stacyhs]

I disagree. Here's why.

1.) The burglaries do not have as much in common as people have come to believe. Of the six burglaries alleged against Guede, only two involve possible climbs, along with the breaking of windows: the one at the Brocchi/Palazzoli law firm, and the one at Via Della Pergola.

Two others (Christian Tramontano and Guede's neighbor, Maria Diaz) involved Guede gaining access through an open or unlocked lower window. It is not known how Guede gained access for the two burglaries at the Del Prato Nursery in Milan, but there was no broken glass and presumably no climbing (he was living it up on the first floor). 2.) There are some notable differences between the burglary at the Brocchi Law Offices and the one at the cottage. Access to the window (which was actually a door) at Brocchi's was much easier than access to Filomena's room. The door was located on a balcony, and metal grates below the balcony appear to make it a very easy climb: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/law_office_window.jpg

In the law office burglary, the burglar, presumably Rudy, carried the rock with him to the balcony, used it to break a window, and then left it on the balcony. Obviously at Via Della Pergola, the rock went flying through the glass into the room.At the law offices, the burglar laid two men's business jackets on the floor to avoid stepping on broken glass. At Via Della Pergola, there is not much on the floor to prevent someone from stepping on glass, yet there is no crushed glass as if someone had walked on it. There are no footprints, little debris, and there is a plaid cloth bag standing directly in the path from the window to the bedroom door, which surely would have been kicked out of the way by someone stumbling through there in the dark. (Photos on Injustice In Perugia -- scroll about two-thirds of the way down this page: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html.)

3.) There has never been any definitive evidence of forced entry through the window. It would be impossible to climb a wall like the one outside Filomena's room and not get your feet and hands dirty and dusty. Yet there are no tracks or fingermarks; what little loose material or dust appears on the floor of the room could easily have come from the rock after it hit the floor and rolled into the bag, or from the broken pieces of window and window trim.

4.) There are two examples of people trying to show that it would be easy to climb into Filomena's window, but neither of them shows anyone actually doing it. One is a photo, and one is a video. The photo shows a guy with his feet on the window below and his hands on the ledge of Filomena's window, but it does not show him pulling himself up.

The video is edited at exactly the moment the climber (different guy from the photo) would have pulled himself up. It cuts from him starting to pull himself up, to the next scene, where he is sitting on the window sill. It does not show how much difficulty it may or may not have taken him to get to the windowsill. Why not? 5.) Filomena is a liar and a low-life who turned against Amanda. She said her room was tidy, but obviously, it was not. It does not look like a room that has been rummaged through -- it looks like the room of a young woman who leaves stuff on the floor.

6.) Rudy going in through the window does not survive the test of Occam's Razor. I think most people here would agree Rudy was a relatively unmotivated fellow -- that's why he started burglarizing in the first place, allegedly. He is an opportunist, not a go-getter.

Why go in a window when you can kick in a door with a faulty lock? Why go in a window without a balcony, when there is a window with a balcony just around the other side of the house, where no one can see you from the street? Why go in an upper window of a place you haven't been to, when you can go into a lower window of a place you're familiar with, and that you know has pot plants?Why break in at all, when you are just out wandering around, and one of the occupants of the cottage happens to walk up at the same time and, distracted by trying to call her Mum, says, um, yeah, I guess you can use the bathroom?

7.) There is no basis whatsoever, other than Rudy's own account, for believing that he was sitting on the toilet when something happened -- in his version, Amanda and Raffaele came in, and in "our" version, Meredith came in. Again, with Occam's Razor -- if you just climbed in a window to commit a burglary and you're interrupted, why not just be quiet for awhile, and then jump back out the window? Maybe because you didn't come in through the window in the first place.

1. The door to Del Prato's school had a broken lock and could be opened with a strong push. She testified to that. It is logical that a person trying to gain entrance would push the door forcefully. When it opened, it would not leave any evidence of a break-in.

Different circumstances are going to result in different methods of gaining entrance. When a burglar finds an open window, he does not have to break a window. Just because not all the burglaries had second story climbs through broken windows does not mean they were not committed by the same person.

2. Precisely because there was a balcony, Guede did not have to throw a rock throught the glass. He could stand on the balcony and use the rock to break the glass without throwing it.

As for the plaid bag, you are assuming Guede had no flashlight and/or could not see the bag from moonlight. It is not illogical for a burglar to carry a flashlight.

3. Unfortunately, one of the failures of the police was not to consult a glass breakage expert who could have determined from what side the glass was broken. However, a mark on the outside of the interior shutter does show a fresh impact.

Regarding the dust that would be "impossible" not to be on the killer's hands and feet, it had rained the day before which would leave the stucco wet thus wetting down any dust, thus leaving no residue.

4. The video does not show the man actually pulling himself up, but it does include his verbal statement that it is an easy thing to do, not only for an experienced climber, but for "anyone". To conclude that he had just not actually done exactly that is to believe that the climber, the two hosts, and the editor were intentionally misleading the public.


6. When Guede arrived, the door was locked and the faulty lock was not like that at Del Prato's. The lock at the school was faulty in that it did not securely keep the door locked and could be opened with a strong push. The lock at via della Pergola was only faulty in that it would not lock without the key. Once locked, the door was secure.

As for going in the balcony door, it was a strong wooden door and presumably locked. The owner had not bothered to put a grill on it as were on the front doors (upper and lower) and windows of all the easy points of access. The owner must have felt the door was secure enough not to merit a grill. Only that door, Filomena's window and Amanda's window did not have protective grills. Also, that balcony was visible from the apartments above unlike the opposite side of the cottage where Filomena's window was located. A friend of mine went to Perugia and said that balcony was easily seen from above. Also, see the google map of the area and it is clearly so.

Access to the lower apartment was prevented by the fact that all the windows and the front door had protective grills, unlike Filomena's window. Unless he carried a blow torch or a hack saw, that ruled out breaking into the boys' apartment.

There was no need for Guede to stage a break-in at all. Any stranger could have surprised Meredith as she arrived home and pushed her inside. Anyone could have knocked on the door and done the same when she opened it to see who was there. Men forcing themselves in this way is certainly not unusual which is why people have door peep holes and intercoms.

7. It does not make sense that Guede used the toilet AFTER he killed Meredith. He would have wanted to leave immediately, not hang around taking a dump. Therefore, he had to have used it before she arrived home showing he was already in the apartment before she came home.

Guede may have waited in the bathroom just as you say and tried to sneak out the front door when Meredith went into her bedroom, but found it locked preventing him from exiting without the key. It's also quite possible that he encountered Meredith coming out of her room as he moved towards Filomena's room which was just next to her room. Perhaps Meredith heard something, or was going to the bathroom or kitchen. It was a small place.
Once she was incapacitated, there was no reason to exit through the window instead of the front door which was much easier.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>I think a no window entry scenario is possible but I can't see it as being definitively the very best explanation. There's huge problems with other entries, the window actually being broken being a the major one. Why is it broken if not for entry?<snip>

That's interesting, MaryH, are you suggesting he threw the rock just to make sure no one was home and gained access with Meredith when she got home?

He may have thrown it to test whether anyone was home and would react. My preferred explanation is that Rudy had a conscience, and he threw the rock to summon neighbors to call the police after he left. He might even have gone back to do it. Unlikely, but possible. But -- there is only evidence of a rock being thrown through the window; there is not evidence of anyone in the room.

Rudy did not mean to kill Meredith; he did not even know she was dead when he left. He would not have locked her door, otherwise -- he did that to prevent her from getting out and calling for help, but then he changed his mind.

IMO, he would not have committed an attack, rape and murder just on account of being caught in the middle of a burglary. He had never been prosecuted for any of his previous burglaries. I think he was motivated to aggress against Meredith after having spent some time with her, and feeling the sap rising, so to speak, only to have her tell him to hit the road.

 

[Mary_H]

1. The door to Del Prato's school had a broken lock and could be opened with a strong push. She testified to that. It is logical that a person trying to gain entrance would push the door forcefully. When it opened, it would not leave any evidence of a break-in.

Okay, you have more information than I on that subject.

Different circumstances are going to result in different methods of gaining entrance. When a burglar finds an open window, he does not have to break a window. Just because not all the burglaries had second story climbs through broken windows does not mean they were not committed by the same person.

I didn't suggest any of the burglaries were not committed by Rudy. My implication was intended to be that he had more than one MO. I believe some people think he committed all the burglaries the same way, but the fact is that 4/6 of his alleged burglaries did not involve climbing and breaking windows, and 2/6 did.

2. Precisely because there was a balcony, Guede did not have to throw a rock throught the glass. He could stand on the balcony and use the rock to break the glass without throwing it.

By the same token, if he could actually climb to Filomena's window, he may not have needed to break the glass with a rock at all. He could have used his flashlight.

As for the plaid bag, you are assuming Guede had no flashlight and/or could not see the bag from moonlight. It is not illogical for a burglar to carry a flashlight.

Okay, assuming the burglary was planned. If he spent any time in that room at all, though, you would think he would have snagged her laptop.

3. Unfortunately, one of the failures of the police was not to consult a glass breakage expert who could have determined from what side the glass was broken. However, a mark on the outside of the interior shutter does show a fresh impact.

Regarding the dust that would be "impossible" not to be on the killer's hands and feet, it had rained the day before which would leave the stucco wet thus wetting down any dust, thus leaving no residue.

Then there should have been mud on his shoes, and in the room.

4. The video does not show the man actually pulling himself up, but it does include his verbal statement that it is an easy thing to do, not only for an experienced climber, but for "anyone". To conclude that he had just not actually done exactly that is to believe that the climber, the two hosts, and the editor were intentionally misleading the public.

Yes.

6. When Guede arrived, the door was locked and the faulty lock was not like that at Del Prato's. The lock at the school was faulty in that it did not securely keep the door locked and could be opened with a strong push. The lock at via della Pergola was only faulty in that it would not lock without the key. Once locked, the door was secure.

As for going in the balcony door, it was a strong wooden door and presumably locked. The owner had not bothered to put a grill on it as were on the front doors (upper and lower) and windows of all the easy points of access. The owner must have felt the door was secure enough not to merit a grill. Only that door, Filomena's window and Amanda's window did not have protective grills. Also, that balcony was visible from the apartments above unlike the opposite side of the cottage where Filomena's window was located. A friend of mine went to Perugia and said that balcony was easily seen from above. Also, see the google map of the area and it is clearly so.

Wasn't Filomena's window strong and presumably locked? Didn't the owner feel it was secure enough not to merit a grill? The balcony was visible from above, while Filomena's window was visible from the street. Six of one... both equally difficult and dangerous, and maybe the balcony door was not locked, in the same way Filomena's shutters were not.

Access to the lower apartment was prevented by the fact that all the windows and the front door had protective grills, unlike Filomena's window. Unless he carried a blow torch or a hack saw, that ruled out breaking into the boys' apartment.

Again, you have more information than I on that subject.

There was no need for Guede to stage a break-in at all. Any stranger could have surprised Meredith as she arrived home and pushed her inside. Anyone could have knocked on the door and done the same when she opened it to see who was there. Men forcing themselves in this way is certainly not unusual which is why people have door peep holes and intercoms.

I didn't say he staged a break-in.

7. It does not make sense that Guede used the toilet AFTER he killed Meredith. He would have wanted to leave immediately, not hang around taking a dump. Therefore, he had to have used it before she arrived home showing he was already in the apartment before she came home.

I didn't say he used the bathroom after the murder, and indeed, if he had, his bloody footprints would have led to the bathroom instead of out the door.

Guede may have waited in the bathroom just as you say and tried to sneak out the front door when Meredith went into her bedroom, but found it locked preventing him from exiting without the key. It's also quite possible that he encountered Meredith coming out of her room as he moved towards Filomena's room which was just next to her room. Perhaps Meredith heard something, or was going to the bathroom or kitchen. It was a small place.
Once she was incapacitated, there was no reason to exit through the window instead of the front door which was much easier.

Why would he move toward the door if he knew the window was open? Why would he be afraid of Meredith if she caught him in the act of being in there? Why not just run? Did she have a gun?

There is no sign of struggle anywhere except in Meredith's room. If she had come out and he had chased her, they probably would have knocked over one of those flimsy clothing racks that were standing in the hall.

In the end, since we can't answer the question of how Rudy got in, we will be guided by our biases. I want Rudy to have gotten Meredith to let him in somehow and most other people want Rudy to have broken in through the window. To me, the question was never that important, because it said nothing about Amanda and Raffaele, who were my focus.

 

[Vixen]

Not Stefanoni. Thus your strawman about "international forensic DNA collection standards" is utterly irrelevant.

What standards are there for forensic laboratory operations? Any of them "international"?

Dr Stefanoni was in charge of the Forensics Team.

There are no 'international standards'. Italy, like the UK, follows the EUROPEAN standards - ENFSI.

Operational would be the ISO9000 and ISO9001 - heck, a previous accountancy practice acquired ISO standards - it's very generic, to do with quality benchmarking, rather than anything to do with forensics, per se.

 

[Vixen]

Being dead wrong seems to happen quite a lot when an argument is underpinned by high levels of scientific illiteracy, intellectual dishonesty and blinkered bias. Just sayin'

Don't do yourself down. There is always room for improvement.

 

[Vixen]

Apologies. You are correct - you have provided cites.

These are the ones I remember.

You posted a pic of the lower window, the one underneath Filomena'swhich you claimed showed no bars on it. Yet the picture clearly showed there were bars on the window.

Also, the whole reason we're talking about Novelli is because I asked you to provide ONE citation of a forensic-DNA expert who supported Stefanoni. You (without citation) named Prof Novelli who testified for the prosecution in Sept 2011 as the DNA evidence at trial was falling apart.

Novelli made some general claims about how an experienced lab-tech could on occasion ignore protocols and substitute experience to arrive at a right result. But nowhere did Novelli say that Stefanoni was, indeed, representative of this example.

And Prof Novelli's testimony, as reviewed by the subsequent Judge Nencini trial, only served to establish that Stefanoni had NOT followed protocols in relation to the need for multiple amplifications of small samples.

So I apologise. You did give a citation.

So I am amending the request made of you - give a citation of a forensic-DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni's work, rather than tears it down.

Stefanoni did not 'ignore protocols'. She carried out the polymerase process of amplification in front of defence expert witnesses, in line with conventional court procedures. Not one of those experts complained at the time.

If there is a serious crime scene and the perps clean up, you are seriously arguing, 'therefore, they should get off scot free'?

The defence via 'independent' (sic) 'expert' (ditto) Vecchiotti tried to argue that LCN identification should be limited to identifying disaster victims or missing persons, but not murderers and rapists, lost their argument in court. As you know, the Rome labs carried out the very LCN analysis of sample 65(i) that Vecchiotti had refused to do, whilst citing the aforesaid.

The technology the RIS had at the Nencini appeal, was not available as of the date Stefanoni carried out her amplification, with not enough sample left over to repeat (hence the presence of real time witnesses, who raised no concerns).

 

[Vixen]

He may have thrown it to test whether anyone was home and would react. My preferred explanation is that Rudy had a conscience, and he threw the rock to summon neighbors to call the police after he left. He might even have gone back to do it. Unlikely, but possible. But -- there is only evidence of a rock being thrown through the window; there is not evidence of anyone in the room.

Rudy did not mean to kill Meredith; he did not even know she was dead when he left. He would not have locked her door, otherwise -- he did that to prevent her from getting out and calling for help, but then he changed his mind.

IMO, he would not have committed an attack, rape and murder just on account of being caught in the middle of a burglary. He had never been prosecuted for any of his previous burglaries. I think he was motivated to aggress against Meredith after having spent some time with her, and feeling the sap rising, so to speak, only to have her tell him to hit the road.

That doesn't explain the kids' role in this, and why they went to great lengths to cover up for Rudy, including a myraid of lies of what they did that evening, even to the extent of fatuously claiming a complete loss of memory, which in Amanda's case, only came back at the appearance of a nun, later in prison. (Source: her prison diary.)

 

[bagels]

He may have thrown it to test whether anyone was home and would react. My preferred explanation is that Rudy had a conscience, and he threw the rock to summon neighbors to call the police after he left. He might even have gone back to do it. Unlikely, but possible. But -- there is only evidence of a rock being thrown through the window; there is not evidence of anyone in the room.

Rudy did not mean to kill Meredith; he did not even know she was dead when he left. He would not have locked her door, otherwise -- he did that to prevent her from getting out and calling for help, but then he changed his mind.

IMO, he would not have committed an attack, rape and murder just on account of being caught in the middle of a burglary. He had never been prosecuted for any of his previous burglaries. I think he was motivated to aggress against Meredith after having spent some time with her, and feeling the sap rising, so to speak, only to have her tell him to hit the road.

Rudy popped up on CCTV twice that night scouting the place out, the one night guaranteed to have the most people, particularly students, out of town. We have no record of Rudy attempting to make any contact with any of the students prior to the murder. So it's a pretty strange coincidence that he decides to woo his way in with Meredith by randomly showing up at her apartment on the one night when he probably knows the downstairs boys will be out of town, and a good chunk of the other visiting students will be out of town as well.

I have no reason to believe Rudy expected Meredith to be home. For me it's just a burglary gone bad. It was incredibly stupid for Rudy to kill her. But criminals are more often than not an extremely stupid and irrational bunch, in addition many have mental health issues, including Rudy by all accounts.

 

[Mary_H]

That doesn't explain the kids' role in this, and why they went to great lengths to cover up for Rudy, including a myraid of lies of what they did that evening, even to the extent of fatuously claiming a complete loss of memory, which in Amanda's case, only came back at the appearance of a nun, later in prison. (Source: her prison diary.)

Oh, shoot, I forgot to explain the kids' role in this! Let me work on it.

 

[Mary_H]

Rudy popped up on CCTV twice that night scouting the place out, the one night guaranteed to have the most people, particularly students, out of town. We have no record of Rudy attempting to make any contact with any of the students prior to the murder. So it's a pretty strange coincidence that he decides to woo his way in with Meredith by randomly showing up at her apartment on the one night when he probably knows the downstairs boys will be out of town, and a good chunk of the other visiting students will be out of town as well.

I have no reason to believe Rudy expected Meredith to be home. For me it's just a burglary gone bad. It was incredibly stupid for Rudy to kill her. But criminals are more often than not an extremely stupid and irrational bunch, in addition many have mental health issues, including Rudy by all accounts.

I don't think Rudy expected Meredith to be home; he just got lucky when they crossed paths, and started getting ideas. He may have been scoping the place out, knowing a lot of people were going out of town. Or he may have been looking for something to do with people he knew. Most of the other people he had burgled before were strangers to him, though, except Maria Diaz, his neighbor.

I think in every case except Tramontano, he made himself at home, using the kitchen to fix himself something to eat.

 

[Samson]

He may have thrown it to test whether anyone was home and would react. My preferred explanation is that Rudy had a conscience, and he threw the rock to summon neighbors to call the police after he left. He might even have gone back to do it. Unlikely, but possible. But -- there is only evidence of a rock being thrown through the window; there is not evidence of anyone in the room.

Rudy did not mean to kill Meredith; he did not even know she was dead when he left. He would not have locked her door, otherwise -- he did that to prevent her from getting out and calling for help, but then he changed his mind.

IMO, he would not have committed an attack, rape and murder just on account of being caught in the middle of a burglary. He had never been prosecuted for any of his previous burglaries. I think he was motivated to aggress against Meredith after having spent some time with her, and feeling the sap rising, so to speak, only to have her tell him to hit the road.

I am glad you have brought all this up, because there could be a couple of continuations here....
One thing is certain, he threw the rock with maximum speed. 28 mph in fact.
The embedded glass shard is the most fascinating piece of evidence, and was absolute proof of an external event. It is impossible to get this from the Massei nonsense inside the room, and in fact drew me into the web.
Ron Hendry identified debris in Filomena's room, and there is a fresh scrub mark where Rudy stood on the lower window timber surround, but I do like the forensics of the break (in) .

 

[Numbers]

He may have thrown it to test whether anyone was home and would react. My preferred explanation is that Rudy had a conscience, and he threw the rock to summon neighbors to call the police after he left. He might even have gone back to do it. Unlikely, but possible. But -- there is only evidence of a rock being thrown through the window; there is not evidence of anyone in the room.

Rudy did not mean to kill Meredith; he did not even know she was dead when he left. He would not have locked her door, otherwise -- he did that to prevent her from getting out and calling for help, but then he changed his mind.

IMO, he would not have committed an attack, rape and murder just on account of being caught in the middle of a burglary. He had never been prosecuted for any of his previous burglaries. I think he was motivated to aggress against Meredith after having spent some time with her, and feeling the sap rising, so to speak, only to have her tell him to hit the road.

Mary_H,

Have you accounted for: "A glass shard in the murder room next to Rudy Guede’s bloody shoeprint"?

And: "Since the murder, security bars have been installed on the window which raises the question: If Romanelli’s window really was an ‘illogical’ entry point for a burglar, why were security bars installed"?

And Guede's statement: "... in front of me there was a room, a bedroom, I saw there was the window, it was open, anyway there was this window and it was visible also from the yard ..."?

And: The security bars on the window, made it pointless or difficult for the climber, in the demonstration, to pull himself up to the window ledge.

And: One possibility, IMO, is that Guede broke into a temporarily empty flat he knew was rented by four women, with the intent not only of stealing money or goods, but also of surprising and raping the first one of the women to come home. Of course, this possibility is unproven, and only Guede would know his motives with certainty.

See: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guedes-break-in/

 

[Bill Williams]

Stefanoni did not 'ignore protocols'. She carried out the polymerase process of amplification in front of defence expert witnesses, in line with conventional court procedures. Not one of those experts complained at the time.

If there is a serious crime scene and the perps clean up, you are seriously arguing, 'therefore, they should get off scot free'?

The defence via 'independent' (sic) 'expert' (ditto) Vecchiotti tried to argue that LCN identification should be limited to identifying disaster victims or missing persons, but not murderers and rapists, lost their argument in court. As you know, the Rome labs carried out the very LCN analysis of sample 65(i) that Vecchiotti had refused to do, whilst citing the aforesaid.

The technology the RIS had at the Nencini appeal, was not available as of the date Stefanoni carried out her amplification, with not enough sample left over to repeat (hence the presence of real time witnesses, who raised no concerns).

You either fundamentally don't even know what the defence argued, or even what the courts said about Stefanoni's work, or you are deliberately skewing the record.

Stefanoni ignored protocols. In a sense she had to because she was dealing with samples which were forensicly useless, because they could not be subject to multiple amplification. Multiple amplification is necessary to come to a reliable result.

Who said this? Judge Nencini in 2014. Yes, the convicting judge. You say that the defence never objected.... yet, Judge Nencini said that on these issues he was forced to agree with what the defence was complaining about.

LOL! Nice try, Vixen.

If there is a serious crime scene and the perps clean up, you are seriously arguing, 'therefore, they should get off scot free'?
​

What universe do you inhabit? There was no clean up, most certainly no clean up that masked the presence of addition perps, other than Rudy Guede. But you should be congratulated for constructing the most awkward strawman argument these threads have seen - and we're on the continuations into the 20s!

[*]The defence via 'independent' (sic) 'expert' (ditto) Vecchiotti tried to argue that LCN identification should be limited to identifying disaster victims or missing persons, but not murderers and rapists, lost their argument in court.
​

It is precisely THIS which marks that you have not even read the trial documents. That argument you say comes from Vecchiotti, actually came from the prosecution expert, Novelli.

And the argument was NOT that LCN should be limited to "disaster victims", it was that with such a ready supply of forensic-DNA available in those situations, there is no need for it because ample supply exists to do the very multiple amplifications that could not be done in the Kercher case (in relation to AK and RS).

You have now marked yourself as completely ignorant of the arguments made on either side of the case.

For the umpteenth time - Vecchiotti was an independent, court appointed expert. The Italian Supreme Court in 2015 in acquitting the pair included a discussion of why independent expert opinion was valuable to the court, and why judges simply could not substitute themselves as an expert of the experts.

You do not even know the lay of the land in this case. It would be best to stop reading the fake-wiki and the nutjob websites.

 

[Bill Williams]

That doesn't explain the kids' role in this, and why they went to great lengths to cover up for Rudy, including a myraid of lies of what they did that evening, even to the extent of fatuously claiming a complete loss of memory, which in Amanda's case, only came back at the appearance of a nun, later in prison. (Source: her prison diary.)

Oh, shoot, I forgot to explain the kids' role in this! Let me work on it.

LOL!!

Vixen then needs to include the faux-traslator, Anna Donnino, as a liar, because Donnino testified that she at interrogation actually tried to get AK to remember things she'd obviously forgotten - or had suppressed because of alleged trauma.

It has been 8 to 9 years of nutters trying to shoehorn Knox and/or Sollecito into this crime and all they have managed to do is, as the final Italian Supreme Court noted, construct a mass of contradictions.

 

[LondonJohn]

Don't do yourself down. There is always room for improvement.

It was your arguments to which I was referring, not mine. But you know that of course, didn't you

 

[NotEvenWrong]

There are no 'international standards'. Italy, like the UK, follows the EUROPEAN standards - ENFSI.

Europe consists of more than one country, Vixen.

I realize if you reply to this, with the next post I am going to have to quote the definition of "international", and you will start arguing that the dictionary has been bought off by the Amanda Knox Illuminati and the sky is filled with purple flying elephants. So, given that, I am going to let your raving delusions be for now. Good luck finding the truth Vixen!

 

[abaddon]

Dr Stefanoni was in charge of the Forensics Team.

There are no 'international standards'. Italy, like the UK, follows the EUROPEAN standards - ENFSI.

Wut?

Italy and the UK are not different nations? What exactly do you think "international" means? Do you somehow think "international" and "global" are synonymous? ENFSI is somehow not international?

Operational would be the ISO9000 and ISO9001 - heck, a previous accountancy practice acquired ISO standards - it's very generic, to do with quality benchmarking, rather than anything to do with forensics, per se.

And you would be wrong. Heck, there are even ISO standards which apply to forensic laboratories, ISO 18385:2016 being the most recent. You further seem to be confused about what ISO 9000/1/2/3/4 are.

 

[Vixen]

You either fundamentally don't even know what the defence argued, or even what the courts said about Stefanoni's work, or you are deliberately skewing the record.

Stefanoni ignored protocols. In a sense she had to because she was dealing with samples which were forensicly useless, because they could not be subject to multiple amplification. Multiple amplification is necessary to come to a reliable result.

Who said this? Judge Nencini in 2014. Yes, the convicting judge. You say that the defence never objected.... yet, Judge Nencini said that on these issues he was forced to agree with what the defence was complaining about.

LOL! Nice try, Vixen.

If there is a serious crime scene and the perps clean up, you are seriously arguing, 'therefore, they should get off scot free'?
​

What universe do you inhabit? There was no clean up, most certainly no clean up that masked the presence of addition perps, other than Rudy Guede. But you should be congratulated for constructing the most awkward strawman argument these threads have seen - and we're on the continuations into the 20s!

[*]The defence via 'independent' (sic) 'expert' (ditto) Vecchiotti tried to argue that LCN identification should be limited to identifying disaster victims or missing persons, but not murderers and rapists, lost their argument in court. ​

It is precisely THIS which marks that you have not even read the trial documents. That argument you say comes from Vecchiotti, actually came from the prosecution expert, Novelli.
And the argument was NOT that LCN should be limited to "disaster victims", it was that with such a ready supply of forensic-DNA available in those situations, there is no need for it because ample supply exists to do the very multiple amplifications that could not be done in the Kercher case (in relation to AK and RS).

You have now marked yourself as completely ignorant of the arguments made on either side of the case.

For the umpteenth time - Vecchiotti was an independent, court appointed expert. The Italian Supreme Court in 2015 in acquitting the pair included a discussion of why independent expert opinion was valuable to the court, and why judges simply could not substitute themselves as an expert of the experts.

You do not even know the lay of the land in this case. It would be best to stop reading the fake-wiki and the nutjob websites.

WRONG. It was Professor Novelli and Torrecelli (_sp?) who pointed out this was a mischievous argument in the case of 36(i) as there was precise technology for embryology. The court accepted the prosecution argument accordingly and directed that the sample be tested. They took the task out of Vecchiotti & Conti's hand, as they clearly could not be trusted.

 

[Vixen]

Wut?

Italy and the UK are not different nations? What exactly do you think "international" means? Do you somehow think "international" and "global" are synonymous? ENFSI is somehow not international?

And you would be wrong. Heck, there are even ISO standards which apply to forensic laboratories, ISO 18385:2016 being the most recent. You further seem to be confused about what ISO 9000/1/2/3/4 are.

Stop being so disingenuous.

The idea for a forensic product grade of consumables was first proposed in Forensic Science International: Genetics 4 (2010):269-270.

http://www.ishinews.com/iso-18385-the-creation-of-a-forensic-grade-standard/

You DO know, the murder took place 2007 and the trial was in 2009?

No, Europe is NOT international. EUROPE means EUROPE. (Not the Missouri Highway Patrol Handbook, as wheeled out by the defence.)