Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[odeed]

IIRC, Filomena and Laura shared one bathroom and Amanda and Meredith the other one. IIRC, the police did not take reference samples from either Laura or Filomena. I am not sure what you mean by coincidence. I would not use that word to characterize where I stand.

Chris

If Filomena and Laura DNA was not taken for reference, then I will assume that all the samples taken from the crime scene could be linked with the DNA of Kercher, Guede, Sollecito and Knox, and that no DNA was from an unknown 5th person (excluding the samples too small too test) was found, because I am sure the defense would have used this fact to cast doubt on the guilt of the defendants.

You are ignoring the near certainty that Sollecito’s DNA is in some rooms of the house.

Based on this earlier assumption, I will state that you are ignoring the greater certainty that Filomena's DNA is in many more rooms of the house.

I will also state, based on your assumptions, that there should have been a high probability of finding Filomena's DNA at the crime scene, either in Kercher's bedroom, or mixed with Kercher's DNA in Filomena's own bedroom, because we know, with near absolute certainty, that the murderer was in her bedroom, going through her personal belongings, the night of the murder.

 

[Dan O.]

America is a big place. But in some parts, they put the murder suspect under surveillance for at least a couple of days while they gather more evidence. [link] (especially when all they have to go on is a possible sneaker print)

 

[Dan O.]

we know, with near absolute certainty, that the murderer was in her bedroom, going through her personal belongings, the night of the murder.

So do we. (wait, are we on the same side?)

 

[odeed]

Yes, with a little bit of bit of wiggle room, and depending on whose side one is on, then the murderer was either in Filomena's room before killing Kercher or after (and maybe there's a scenario for during).

 

[BobTheDonkey]

He called his sister and reported the situation. At this point, we have one broken window, one tossed room, a little blood (actually a lot of blood if you aren't expecting to find any blood in the cottage) and one missing person. Unless Italy has a law against leaving doors open or toilets unflushed, there was no knowledge of a crime to report at that time.

So you, and Halides, are contending that the call to his sister was, in fact, a formal report leading to the sending of uniformed officers to the cottage to investigate the suspected, at the time, burglary?

That's interesting. Do you have a link showing this?


And I'm accused of being disingenuous because I, rightfully so, believe the "Monster of Florence" case/conviction of Mignini has nothing do to with this case?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

America is a big place. But in some parts, they put the murder suspect under surveillance for at least a couple of days while they gather more evidence. [link] (especially when all they have to go on is a possible sneaker print)

So, every time there's a brutal murder in America, the Police allow the prime suspect this time?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

That is possible, yes. What would they do in America?

I would think that under the circumstances (supposed eye-witness, Amanda), Lumumba would have been placed under arrest until he could verify his alibi.

 

[Fiona]

America is a big place. But in some parts, they put the murder suspect under surveillance for at least a couple of days while they gather more evidence. [link] (especially when all they have to go on is a possible sneaker print)

That is an interesting link. I do not see it is comparable for a number of reasons but I am open to correction.

In the case cited there does not appear to be any evidence tying this man to the murder: he worked at the place the victim worked and he went home early that day, saying he was unwell. He had some minor scratches on his arm. It may be that there is other evidence tying him to the crime, but it is not reported. In addition there is apparently another man who had also worked in the same place and allegedly exposed himself to her. I wonder if they placed him under surveillance too. Or if they had a whole lot of folk under watch?

In contrast, in the case of Patrick Lumumba they had evidence from RS that Knox was not where she said she was when the murder was committed: and they had his statement that what he said originally was a lot of rubbish which he said because he believed what Knox had told him and did not see the inconsistencies in her account. They had reason to believe she left the house: and they had reason to believe that she had arranged to meet someone, because of the way she worded her text. Knox did not explain that misunderstanding but instead she accused Lumumba directly of killing Meredith Kercher. An accusation she repeated when she insisted on making a further statement in the course of the night.

I believe that in order to arrest someone in the USA the police must show something called "probable cause" to someone (presumably a judge or a prosecutor). In the NYPD case you cited I do not see anything which would qualify. But then the question arises: would a direct accusation from someone who claimed to have been present; coupled with a complete lack of evidence showing her to have been anywhere else; a statement from a third party which indicated her earlier statements were lies; and a text message which indicated she had arranged to meet this person that night, constitute "probable cause"? I honestly don't know how that works in the states but I remain very surprised if that is not enough for the police to detain someone at least for questioning, and while awaiting the forensic findings from the crime scene.

If it is not then it seems really quite dangerous to me. The person so accused could flee; or kill again; or intimidate witnesses; or whatever.

In this country, if the police did not detain someone in those circumstances and the person committed another crime or was able to get away then the police would be pilloried. I can see the headlines about how their failure to act let a murderer kill again: and I know there are just such headlines in the USA as well because it was mentioned in a thread. Sometimes, when they have no legal power to act, the police just have to take those lumps:as do all public servants from time to time. But I am yet to be convinced they would be so hamstrung with these facts to present to whoever grants the right to arrest. That would be a brave official indeed: one might almost say foolhardy. Or so it seems on the surface.

I do not know what size Staten Island is, but it is my belief that the NYPD is a big police force. Not sure if that is correct. I imagine, and again I am open to correction, that it is perhaps better resourced than the police department of a small university town which has not seen a murder for years. I have looked for accounts of such surveillance in smaller towns in the USA but I have not found any. Perhaps you know of some? Maybe the size of the department does not make any difference? I think it probably would but I could easily be wrong

Another thing which occurs to me is that I have absolutely no idea what this committment of resources is actually for. In the link it seems that they were able to arrest him for a different crime entirely. I cannot see that as a very likely outcome, though. And even serial killers leave gaps between their murders, so how long are you going to watch, if the aim is prevention or to catch him in the act? Perhaps the intent is to ensure he does not flee? But if there is no evidence to detain him I cannot see how you can legally restrict his movements, so that does not seem to work. So what is this actually for?

I assume that to place a citizen under such surveillance must also be authorised by someone? Perhaps it is an operational matter for the police themselves? I sincerely hope not, but it may be just a resourcing decision for the police chief. How that does not open the way for a suit for harrassment or intimidation is not obvious to me. And from the link it seems that he and the woman were aware of the surveillance both from unmarked police cars and from the media. WTF is all that about? Is it ok to tip off the media that someone is potentially a suspect in a murder case and allow them to follow him about? While the police are doing the same thing? This is very strange to me.

I did notice this, though:

The attorney said he's mulling a civil lawsuit after police questioned his client for 25 hours without offering him food, water or the chance to use the facilities.

I wonder if that is why some of the americans here were so ready to accept this same claim from Knox? Perhaps it is routine in some states and so seemed plausible? It has been shown to be wholly false but even before we had evidence for that, it was wildly improbable to me. If things are done like that in some of the states that may account for the fact that she (or her family) even tried it? Just a thought

 

[lector]

...I did notice this, though:

Quote:
The attorney said he's mulling a civil lawsuit after police questioned his client for 25 hours without offering him food, water or the chance to use the facilities.

I wonder if that is why some of the americans here were so ready to accept this same claim from Knox? Perhaps it is routine in some states and so seemed plausible? It has been shown to be wholly false but even before we had evidence for that, it was wildly improbable to me. If things are done like that in some of the states that may account for the fact that she (or her family) even tried it? Just a thought

I'm no legal expert, or even an informed amateur. Policies & practices vary from one jurisdiction to another so it's difficult to say what is routine. Some folks may have the perception that such detentions are routine, depending on where they live, what TV shows they watch, etc. I personally don't think that they are routine, though it wouldn't surprise me that such things happen from time to time almost anywhere. Professionalism can vary widely even within individual police departments.

I think the general practice is that you can detain a suspect for up to 48 hours, but you have to release him if you can't show probable cause by then.

In a quick search, I found this document on a 2002 investigation of the Detroit PD on related matters. One can glean a fair amount of information on the legal structure here - the relationships between federal, state, & local laws & policies - if one is sufficiently interested.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/split/documents/dpd/detroit_6_5.php

 

[HumanityBlues]

Some states will require less time, but arraignment is generally required 48 hours after someone is arrested.

If you are detained (meaning not free to leave) Miranda rights attach. (Right to remain silent, right to attorney).

If someone is detained for 25 hours without food, water or facilities, any incriminating statements that person made are definitely not going to be admissible because that is obvious duress/coercion.

 

[katy_did]

And you're are dodging. I am saying there is no evidence to support your claim that from the inside the door needed to be locked with a key and in order to get out of the cottage, one needed a key.

I'm not dodging, Fulcanelli. There IS evidence that the keys needed to be used to lock the door in order to prevent it from blowing open in the wind. In prior posts I have quoted sources to support my points, yet when I ask the same from you, I'm told this is common knowledge and I should go and search the PMF forum. In other words, when you make a claim, I'm supposed to go and look up the evidence to support it.

Well, fair's fair. I'm telling you there is evidence a key was needed to lock the door, and that the girls always kept the door locked so that it didn't blow open. It's on PMF. If you can't find it, I guess you'll have to take my word for it, as you expect me to do with every claim you make.

 

[katy_did]

She indeed did and lost, because her argument was complete pish.

Nothing like a logical response to an argument.

No. I'm saying 'we don't know' what time the first carabinieri police car arrived and that this certainly cannot be ascertained from a car park cctv camera that is only active when someone actually in the garage moves.

In typical style you assume too much. I didn't say any car spent 17 minutes driving around looking for the cottage. We and you, have no idea what time it left its last job. We also don't know where that specific car came from, whether it's usual rounds was somewhere out of town or in a town nearby.

If you are claiming the CCTV clock is ten minutes slow, as the prosecution did, you are indeed claiming the carabinieri got there at 13:12, meaning all of the above must have happened. But perhaps you have in mind an alternate time? Or is this just a case of you dismissing evidence of the CCTV footage entirely because it contradicts your theory of what happened?

The car didn't call residents directly, they called back to base. It was base that called the residents.

Well in that case, and assuming you're right, isn't it even more likely base would have known that some patrol cars had already arrived and could contact them for directions by radio, rather than needing to call the cottage residents by phone?

 

[katy_did]

While I applaud your reading the Micheli report (many FOAKers don't bother) Perhaps you need to broaden your reading base. It wouldn't 'be' in the Micheli report because by that time the statements had been ruled inadmissible and it was in those statements Amanda had made the claim.

You were the one who claimed Judge Micheli stated that Amanda 'knew' about Meredith's scream before the police did. I pointed out that he didn't. I'll take this as a tacit admission you were wrong in your first assertion.

You did say, however, that other judges had disagreed with Matteini's statement about the scream which supported Amanda's version of events. Care to offer some evidence, or am I just going to get more dodging of the question in response?

 

[katy_did]

If the residents of the home were present, legally it was their responsibility to break the door down. The police didn't do so because they didn't need to...the householders were there to do it. And clearly, the police were concerned because despite their having other duties they waited right by the door to observe it being broken in. If instead they were in their car heading off up the drive at the time, you might have had a point.

Per the Micheli report, the police were unwilling to break the door down because they didn't want to do damage to private property without sufficient evidence. You think perhaps they may have been willing to do so had they suspected there was a dead body in the room? Maybe?

 

[katy_did]

Don't give me that. She edited it for typos only. And I quoted her in a post of mine a whole couple of pages ago, so you missed it not once but twice. You need to pay more attention, especially before throwing accusations of straw men about.

I very rarely edit my posts for typos, Fulcanelli (I rarely make them in the first place, and if I do I catch them in the preview). On the other hand, I very often edit my posts to add bits and pieces I thought of after posting. So Kestrel is very likely right that I edited that bit after she read it.

 

[katy_did]

I have not seen that either. The door was faulty and inclined to open unless closed carefully. That may mean it had to be locked with a key from the inside or it may not. I do not really see how this helps us.

If you are correct and it needed to be opened with a key then what you are arguing is that Guede took the keys and opened the door with a key when he left the cottage. Was his blood on the door? On the door handle? We know that he was covered in blood and his bloody handprint was in Kercher's room.

Could he have washed his hands, possibly? There was, of course, blood on the taps in the bathroom.

Seem to me that there is a lot of uncertainty about this door. We do not know if Guede was admitted by a resident (Knox or Kercher). Or whether he arrived to find the door open, as Knox did the following morning (per her statement). We do not know if it was closed properly with the key after he arrived that night (assuming he was admitted by a resident). It could not have been if he arrived independently (unless we accept he came in through the window; and I find nothing in the evidence to support that contention, so I dismiss it: others differ, of course. )

Yes I agree; since none of us were there, these are all simply theories.

As I understand it what you are proposing is that Guede acted alone: entered the cottage (by Meredith's invitation; by finding the door open; or through the window); assaulted and murdered Meredith for no reason whatsoever in a fight which left 47 injuries on her body;

A sexual motive is, of course, a motive (some might say more of a motive than disagreements over cleaning). However as Mignini has told us, a motive is not necessary.

but did not allow her to fight well enough to get dna under her finger nails despite the fact that she was a student of martial arts;

Even martial arts are no defence against a knife at your throat. Meredith did have defensive wounds on her hands, however.

took the keys and the phones (but no other valuables:with the possible exception of the money, but there is no evidence that he took it); moved her handbag but did not open it, even though he had a pressing need for money with which to leave the country, on your thesis;

Guede had already been linked to one theft because he'd been caught with a stolen laptop. Is it likely he'd risk being linked to a murder in the same way? And as pointed out earlier, it would rather have blown his 'I was on a date' story if he'd been found with Filomena's stolen laptop in his backpack...

Your belief that Guede didn't open Meredith's handbag is presumably that there was no DNA found on the opening. By the same reasoning, can we conclude that since Knox's DNA wasn't found anywhere in the bedroom, she can have had no part in the murder? And of course, if her money was taken at all, it would seem somewhat more likely that the person who took it was the person whose DNA was found on her purse, don't you think?

opened the door with those keys leaving no trace so far as I am aware; ran away from his own house (as shown by where the phones, which were also free of any trace of blood, were found); went home and changed; and arrived at his friends house by 23:30 (I think that was the time: I am not prepared to spend the time checking it since none of this is new); and then went clubbing.

Guede's friends denied they saw him on the night of the murder. So no, he probably didn't arrive at his friend's house by 23:30. Whose flat was closer to the area the phones were found, Guede's or Sollecito's?

What do you think is to be gained by going over the same stuff again?

If you're not interested in discussing a particular aspect of the case, you are of course free not to respond. In my experience, new perspectives on an issue are always a good thing, and everyone has their own particular take on that issue to contribute. Given the drawn out nature of this case - the long wait before the imminent Judge's report is published, and the still longer wait for the appeal - new contributors play a part in keeping a thread going. Alternatively, we could all stop talking about the case until the Judge's report is published, and then cease discussion again until the appeal. Would that be preferable?

 

[katy_did]

How would it have been possible for her to miss it?

Perhaps if she didn't go into the room?

That's not what Raffaele said in his phone call to police.

You've seen footage of the 'bloody bathroom', I presume. Would YOU say there was a lot of blood? Personally, at first glance I would say it's barely noticeable (perhaps that's the reason the first photo released by the police was the bathroom covered in pink stuff; makes for a rather more dramatic story than a photo of the actual bathroom as Amanda saw it would have).

Like what? No cat lived in the upstairs cottage. The blood could only have been left by a person, a person that had since vanished leaving all the blood behind...what can be 'innocent' about that?

Menstrual blood, Fulcanelli. Failing that, a nose bleed.

 

[katy_did]

He called his sister and reported the situation. At this point, we have one broken window, one tossed room, a little blood (actually a lot of blood if you aren't expecting to find any blood in the cottage) and one missing person. Unless Italy has a law against leaving doors open or toilets unflushed, there was no knowledge of a crime to report at that time.

Indeed, Dan. What kind of a conversation to the emergency number would it have been? "I came home to find the front door open, a poo in the toilet and some blood in the bathroom. Yes, there are four women living in our flat. Why do you ask? Please send round your finest police officers".

 

[katy_did]

Perhaps not, but let's walk through AK's story. According to AK, she arrives home the first time on the morning of Nov. 2 sometime between 10:30 & 11:00. She notices the front door is open. She shouts, “Is anyone there?” No answer. She enters the apartment. As she heads towards her room she passes Filomenia’s room (see image below, first room on her left when entering the apartment.). Does she knock on the door, maybe peak in? Apparently not.

She goes into the bathroom to shower. She notices blood on the faucet. She takes her shower and then notices blood on the bathmat. Does this prompt her to redouble her efforts to determine what is going on (i.e., three “odd” incidents--door open, blood on faucet, blood on bath mat)? Apparently not.

After her shower she goes to the other bathroom to use the hair dryer, once again passing Filomenia’s bedroom. How about a look see now? Apparently not.

In the second bathroom she notices feces in the toilet (the fourth “odd” thing). She heads back to her room. Surely, now would be the time to poke your head in Laura’s room and Filomenia’s room just to check it out since every room you’ve been in has had something “odd” going on. Apparently not.

AK is back in her room and finishes getting dressed. She ponders the odd occurrences in her apartment. Does she say to herself, should I call my three roommates and ask if they know what is going on? Should I pound on Meredith’s door to wake her if she’s sleeping? Should I call RS and ask him what to do? Should I call the police? Apparently not.

As AK leaves the apartment she passes Filomenia’s bedroom for the fourth time. Does AK take a peak inside the room? Apparently not. Personally, I don't buy her story.

[qimg]http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/1006.jpg[/qimg]

np: The Kinks - I'm Not Like Anybody Else.

Perhaps she wasn't in the habit of noseying around in her housemate's rooms when they weren't there? You indicate that perhaps she should have called the police. Given that the things she'd found were just slightly 'odd' rather than alarming, is that what you'd do? It's easy to say these things in hindsight, knowing what had actually happened.

In fact, even had she discovered the mess in Filomena's room, calling the emergency number probably wouldn't be the appropriate thing to do, especially if nothing had been taken. Better to notify the local police station of the theft, rather than take up an emergency line for something which is not an emergency. That would be my judgment, anyway.

Also, if her story is so unbelievable, why did she even describe it happening that way in the first place? If they were guilty, far easier just to say she and Raffaelle had arrived at the cottage, noticed these strange things and called the police. The odd thing is, it seems people would in fact have found that story more plausible, even though it's the obvious one someone involved in a murder would come up with.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Indeed, Dan. What kind of a conversation to the emergency number would it have been? "I came home to find the front door open, a poo in the toilet and some blood in the bathroom. Yes, there are four women living in our flat. Why do you ask? Please send round your finest police officers".

That would, in fact, have sufficed - and have been expected. You make it sound like it would be ridiculous for someone to call the Police to report a suspected burglary when, in fact, that's pretty much what one would expect...

"Hello. My gf found the door to her cottage open, the toilet unflushed, and blood on the mat in the bathroom. We're afraid there was a burglary. Could you please send an Officer by?"