Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[TellyKNeasuss]

Nor was Amanda's blood mixed with Meredith's blood. They found Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's DNA.

It's too bad for Amanda that you weren't on her defense team. Her defense team didn't think to claim that there wasn't any actual blood from Amanda, just DNA, so all they could come up with were the weak explanations that there was blood from Amanda's period or from her pierced ear, even though Amanda testified at the trial that the blood wasn't in the bathroom the morning before the murder.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7656872&page=1
(bottom of first page)

 

[Supernaut]

Remember that Amanda's accusation of Patrick came a mere 3 days after the discovery of the body.

That would 5 (five) days, yes?

 

[43degreesNorth]

In Amanda's reenactment during her testimony of the police interrogation and the slap from behind, she didn't appear to convey 'fear' more annoyance. She even did the 'look over the shoulder' for the benefit of the jury to explain what happened. If she did look over her shoulder, why is she unable to identify the policewoman concerned?

 

[RoseMontague]

Found the quote I was referring to in my previous post:
Google translated and original Italian, from RS appeal

T

he ruling, however, has neglected other statements of that witness who
reported: "that was a mixture and then the spot there if I just (...) was
a mixture of glass, clothes, glasses (...) Yes, they [the glasses] also below, but also
were above "(p. 41 statements Romanelli).
These claims were completely and inexplicably ignored in
that ruling was limited to only report one side of the deposition of
Witness without giving account further clarification provided

La sentenza, tuttavia, ha trascurato altre dichiarazioni della stessa teste che ha
riferito: “cioè era un miscuglio e quindi lì per lì non ci feci subito caso (…) Era
un miscuglio di vetri, vestiti, vetri (…) Si, erano [i vetri] anche sotto, ma anche
erano sopra” (p. 41 dichiarazioni Romanelli).
Tali affermazioni sono state completamente ed inspiegabilmente ignorate nella
sentenza che si è limitata a riportare solo una parte della deposizione della
testimone senza dar conto della successiva precisazione fornita.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

Steve Moore:

"Yet the police did not seize a single knife, letter opener, scissors, screwdriver, nail file…ANYTHING from the murder cottage for testing. Not one thing. It is inconceivable that in a cottage where four women lived, there was not a kitchen knife, or a letter opener, or scissors, or anything which might have been used. It leads one to suspect an investigation intent on proving a theory, rather than searching for truth."

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI3.html


Is the part I bolded in dispute? Is there court testimony or documentation to back it up - or refute it?

 

[stilicho]

The answer to the question is this: Guede fled to Germany shortly after the murder, and it's also well-established that he wore the style of Nike trainers whose sole prints were found in blood in the murder house.

Here are the questions again:

Quote:
Once again, we'll ask you: Where is the evidence that the police knew in advance that Amanda would not only name Patrick but also sign statements to that effect? How many of the officers present at the Questura conspired to conceal their knowledge of Patrick from the PM? Did the PM know about Patrick before the police did? How?

Amanda spent a great deal of effort explaining the unflushed toilet both personally to anyone at her college who would listen and in her 04 NOV 2007 alibi email. Why didn't she stick to her story that the unflushed toilet would lead police to the "real killer"? That clue was not dependent on anything Raffaele said and yet Amanda abandoned it to name Patrick. Why?

I am pretty sure your answers to me were addressed to someone else since they don't match my posts.

 

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by Mary_H
Meredith did know Guede, at least by sight, probably by name, and maybe even well enough to let into the cottage.

...overlooked interviewing Patrick, who was not only Amanda's employer, but was rumored to have wanted to offer Meredith a job AND was known to some as the "most famous man in Perugia."

Wasn't Guede also known to the boys downstairs? I thought I had seen a photo of him posing between two of them - they all had their arms on each others shoulders, like pals.

A lot of your objections and Mary's interpretations of the processing of the crimescene, the collection of evidence--including witness statements--and the arrest and detention of suspects, are a version of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Why should Patrick have been questioned? How did the police connect him to the murder in the cottage?

The SMS on Amanda's cell did not connect Patrick to the murder. There is nothing to suggest they knew Meredith worked for him since it was a cash-only transaction.

I don't know if you're suggesting they should have suspected RG from the beginning too. That would equally be a giant leap for the police to make. Even if they police had taken LashL's advice, and swabbed all the residents and frequent visitors to the cottage, they still wouldn't have located either Patrick or RG.

The biggest problem facing Raffaele and Amanda from noon on 02 NOV 2007 until their arrests was that they were the only ones with a connection to the crimescene and their alibis were weak and getting weaker. Everyone else living at the cottage had been ruled out as suspects.

 

[LondonJohn]

Here are the questions again:

Quote:
Once again, we'll ask you: Where is the evidence that the police knew in advance that Amanda would not only name Patrick but also sign statements to that effect? How many of the officers present at the Questura conspired to conceal their knowledge of Patrick from the PM? Did the PM know about Patrick before the police did? How?

Amanda spent a great deal of effort explaining the unflushed toilet both personally to anyone at her college who would listen and in her 04 NOV 2007 alibi email. Why didn't she stick to her story that the unflushed toilet would lead police to the "real killer"? That clue was not dependent on anything Raffaele said and yet Amanda abandoned it to name Patrick. Why?

I am pretty sure your answers to me were addressed to someone else since they don't match my posts.

The answer is this: Dalla Vedova's name was supplied by the US Consulate, not by the Mayor of Perugia. The Mayor actually recommended Ghirga.

 

[LondonJohn]

You’re possibly being slightly less than honest with yourself here.

Many, if not most of those advocating Amanda’s innocence are doing so because of what they’ve learned about her, and hence from a position of empathy and sympathy for her.

it's about being humane, human, you know?

And there is nothing wrong in appreciating her looks - when I take pleasure in looking at my beautiful (and good natured) cat I’m not ‘lusting’ after her.

When I first heard about the case, my initial thoughts (like many peoples’) were “what a lovely looking girl, who’d have thought she could be so wicked?”. That said, to be honest I was already experiencing, shall we say, “cognitive dissonance” on reading what the press was saying about her.

I rather quickly discovered that in fact, that is on available evidence, there is every reason to believe she is exactly what she first appeared to be - someone not only unlikely to have committed the crimes she’s been accused of, but just about the last person on Earth who could have done.

You understand? The non-existence of physical evidence against her is confirmation of this.

(If the rest of this sounds like polemic or rant, apologies - I don't really have the time available to engage in discussion, so I'll get couple of other things said while I can.)

For me, what quickly followed was anger - at the Italian cops for the cruelty they inflicted on her, at the equally inhumane media-whores who so obligingly defamed her, and at the countless “joiners” (AKA “guilters”) who’ve come out of the woodwork to let everyone know how much pleasure it gives them.

And you know what? This malice toward her isn’t despite who and what she is (frankly, a near-perfect specimen in my opinion) but because of it.

Yes, I know Raffaelle is in prison too, and I have no less sympathy for him in that respect, but he hasn’t been emotionally and psychologically raped in front of the entire planet the way Amanda has.

Hatred and persecution of virtue is the manifestation of an age-old sickness – to me, Amanda Knox’s treatment has served as a barometer to reveal that under a veneer of “progress” it is as prevalent as ever was, and the implications are rather worrying.

I understand what you're saying, but I assure you I'm definitely not being less than honest with myself (and I'm more than a little insulted that you've chosen to use that terminology). Allow me to tell a story for illustration:

A few years ago, I started reading stuff online and in print about Barry George - a very strange and disturbed man with a history of following women in London. He'd been convicted in 2001 of the 1999 shooting murder of Jill Dando, a very prominent and much-loved TV personality. I started from a position of belief in the guilt of George - after all, he'd been convicted, the prosecution had presented what they said was compelling evidence of George's guilt, and his background certainly seemed to fit.

However, the more I read, the more I became persuaded that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred. I thought that some of the "compelling" evidence now looked anything but compelling, and that there might have been a rush to judgment from police and prosecutors who were becoming desperate to "solve" this high-profile murder case (George himself wasn't arrested until over a year after the murder). I wrote to - and subsequently had a couple of meetings with - someone in a position to escalate things. By this time, George had already had two appeals dismissed. However, a BBC TV documentary highlighting the problems surrounding the conviction was aired in September 2006, and the programme's producers themselves referred the case back in conjunction with George's solicitor. To cut a long story short, a retrial was ordered in which key police evidence was discredited. Barry George was acquitted in the retrial and is now a free man.

There are two points arising from this: The first is that, in this case, I actually believe that Barry George may well have committed the crime. But I came to think that the prosecutors failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - as they are obliged to do. And the second point is that Barry George may be one of the strangest people I've ever seen (I haven't met him in person), who lives in a filthy apartment and who follows women obsessively. He's not a pleasant specimen of humanity. But his wrongful conviction deserved to be highlighted just as much as any other potential wrongful conviction - including that of a pretty, preppy, "kooky" young girl from West Seattle.

Again, I reiterate that for me it's not about thinking anything like "I can't believe that a girl like that could be involved in a crime like that". Because I do believe that "people like her" can sometimes have a dark and sinister alter ego that not even their family or closest friends know anything about. My beliefs about the case are purely based on an appraisal of the evidence (or lack of evidence), and the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure a safe conviction. It truly doesn't matter to me whether AK is a pretty young American girl or a 50-year-old Meth-addled Albanian prostitute. There still seems (to me) to be a number of problems with significant elements of the evidence.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

That would 5 (five) days, yes?

Body was found Nov 2, 3 days later is Nov 5. So I guess, technically, it was 3 1/2 days (more exactly 3 days, 14hrs +/- 1hr).

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

A lot of your objections and Mary's interpretations of the processing of the crimescene, the collection of evidence--including witness statements--and the arrest and detention of suspects, are a version of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Why should Patrick have been questioned? How did the police connect him to the murder in the cottage?

The SMS on Amanda's cell did not connect Patrick to the murder. There is nothing to suggest they knew Meredith worked for him since it was a cash-only transaction.

I don't know if you're suggesting they should have suspected RG from the beginning too. That would equally be a giant leap for the police to make. Even if they police had taken LashL's advice, and swabbed all the residents and frequent visitors to the cottage, they still wouldn't have located either Patrick or RG.

The biggest problem facing Raffaele and Amanda from noon on 02 NOV 2007 until their arrests was that they were the only ones with a connection to the crimescene and their alibis were weak and getting weaker. Everyone else living at the cottage had been ruled out as suspects.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that investigators only question persons they suspect of involvement in the crime?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The answer is this: Dalla Vedova's name was supplied by the US Consulate, not by the Mayor of Perugia. The Mayor actually recommended Ghirga.

How is that, in any way, a response to the questions included in Stilicho's post you quoted?

 

[LondonJohn]

The main issue I find not convincing on the side of innocence is the "staged" break-in. I am still convinced it was staged. I don't see a convincing reason for Rudy to stage it and I do see reason for Amanda or Raffaele to stage it. I do not see any convincing forensic evidence that points to any of them. Rudy has little to say about it that I can find other than an interesting statement that he remembers the shutters being wide open but the window and glass intact and unbroken.
Amanda's appeal does not attack this issue very well and gives it little mention. Raffaele's appeal makes an attempt at it but falls short, in my opinion. The only new information I can see was a mention of Filomena's statement possibly from either a deposition or pretrial statement that she saw the glass on top as well as mixed in and underneath the clothes (rather than just on top).
I don't see it as very likely that Rudy entered by that window and even less likely that he would stage it. The only time I can see that he could have staged a break in would be either before Meredith was assaulted or several hours later. Neither of those options makes sense to me.

I see a very convincing reason for Guede to stage a break-in. Let's start by assuming for a minute that Guede committed the crime alone (or even possibly with an accomplice as yet unidentified). If Guede had knocked on the front door of the girls' house that night, he might well have been let in by Meredith (who knew him, at least by sight). And if he'd then ended up killing her, he'd have easily come to the following realisation: If he simply left via the front door, there would be no evidence of forced entry. And he'd have realised that the police would therefore quickly summise that whoever killed Meredith either a) had a key to the front door, b) was let in by someone with a key to the front door, or c) did not have a key but was let in by Meredith.

Therefore, it would definitely be in Guede's interest to stage a break-in in this scenario, since it would be his attempt to misdirect the police away from looking for someone whom Meredith would know well enough to let into the house, and towards a stranger-intruder*. Guede would have known that the number of people whom Meredith might have let into the house when she was alone would be a pretty small number, and that he would soon be identified as one of that number. He'd also probably have realised that many of this group of people were away from Perugia that night (including all the boys from downstairs), thereby narrowing down the list even further.

I'm not suggesting that this is what happened - I'm merely trying to argue that it's not so hard to find a motive for Guede staging the break-in if he were the lone attacker (or even Guede plus A.N. Other).

*Granted, Guede might arguably fall into this category too, but I think he'd have reasoned that the potential group size for "stranger intruders" was far larger than it was for "people whom Meredith knew well enough to let in, and who were in Perugia that night".

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The main issue I find not convincing on the side of innocence is the "staged" break-in. I am still convinced it was staged. I don't see a convincing reason for Rudy to stage it and I do see reason for Amanda or Raffaele to stage it. I do not see any convincing forensic evidence that points to any of them. Rudy has little to say about it that I can find other than an interesting statement that he remembers the shutters being wide open but the window and glass intact and unbroken.
Amanda's appeal does not attack this issue very well and gives it little mention. Raffaele's appeal makes an attempt at it but falls short, in my opinion. The only new information I can see was a mention of Filomena's statement possibly from either a deposition or pretrial statement that she saw the glass on top as well as mixed in and underneath the clothes (rather than just on top).
I don't see it as very likely that Rudy entered by that window and even less likely that he would stage it. The only time I can see that he could have staged a break in would be either before Meredith was assaulted or several hours later. Neither of those options makes sense to me.

Yes, that and Rudi's foot prints leaving the room. You know, at first I read about the trashed room and believed it, then I read Bruce's page on it and I was convinced it wasn't trashed, but just messy like my son's room is most of the time. (Actually, it's not even as bad as his is most of the time)

Then I was reading that motivation's report you kindly sent me and Lord and Behold, Filomena’s (sp) own words say her room was not like that, she had left it tidy. Those pictures I saw of the room were taken way later; Filomena stated that she had picked some up and move other stuff around. Now FOA would have me believe that she is lying, but I don't see that but they will have to add her to the pile of liars in this case, the cops, the hobo, the store clerk, the DNA experts, the prosecutor and who knows, probably the judge too. I seen no reason for Filomena to lie.

 

[LondonJohn]

How is that, in any way, a response to the questions included in Stilicho's post you quoted?

Ah, I see what you mean. The second cellphone (Meredith's UK phone) was only found after the first one had already been handed to the police. Hope that clears up any confusion.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

happy reading

And it's possible that Amanda Knox just by chance decided to wash some of Meredith Kercher's clothes the morning after the murder. And it's possible that Amanda Knox's blood could have gotten mixed in with Meredith Kercher's blood in several different locations even if Amanda Knox was not present during the murder. And it's possible that Amanda and her boyfriend just by chance happened to decide to turn off their cellphones the evening of the murder. Even though I haven't been following this thread or the case in general I was able to come up with more than a dozen of these "it's possible that ..." items in a short time. .

Telly,

Many of your points have been discussed in detail on this site and others. The washing machine was dealt with in the previous thread on this case. Only a few full fingerprints of Amanda's were found, but plenty of partial ones. Here are a few links that deal with these other issues you have raised.

mixed blood?
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/mixed_dna.html

the supposed cleanup

luminol footprints
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/luminol.html
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/cleanup.html

 

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by stilicho
The biggest problem facing Raffaele and Amanda from noon on 02 NOV 2007 until their arrests was that they were the only ones with a connection to the crimescene and their alibis were weak and getting weaker. Everyone else living at the cottage had been ruled out as suspects.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that investigators only question persons they suspect of involvement in the crime? I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that investigators only question persons they suspect of involvement in the crime?

Not at all. Why do you think investigators should have chosen to question Patrick? What connection did he have to the crimescene that they would have known about? They did talk to the tow truck driver and went so far as to look into the company's dispatch records although the driver was not under suspicion. But he was connected to the crimescene because he was in the vicinity around the time of Merediths estimated TOD.

So, again, what connection did Patrick have to the victim or the crimescene that the police knew about before 06 NOV 2007?

 

[Bob001]

What about RS?

A digression: Almost all the comments here are debates about whether Knox committed murder with Guede and Sollecito. But Sollecito is hardly mentioned, except that he says he went to sleep at home and couldn't be sure that Knox was with him all night (the degree of his certainty seems to be an issue). But what is the evidence against him? If authorities thought Knox was guilty because Sollecito couldn't confirm her alibi, wouldn't they have to believe that Sollecito was home asleep? What in Sollecito's background and behavior would make anyone think that he could have participated in this brutal crime and then helped cover it up? I continue to believe that if this had been an impulsive act by three people, they wouldn't have participated equally and one of them would have given up the others. If Sollecito had claimed "those crazy foreigners did it, I was paralyzed with fear," the authorities might have been willing to believe that one of their own wasn't involved.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

It's too bad for Amanda that you weren't on her defense team. Her defense team didn't think to claim that there wasn't any actual blood from Amanda, just DNA, so all they could come up with were the weak explanations that there was blood from Amanda's period or from her pierced ear, even though Amanda testified at the trial that the blood wasn't in the bathroom the morning before the murder.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7656872&page=1
(bottom of first page)

The problem here is with the media coverage, not Amanda's defense. A drop of Amanda's blood (sample 24) was found on the faucet in the bathroom. It showed Amanda's DNA only, not a mixture. That is the blood Amanda's defense attributes to a recent ear piercing.

With regard to the mixed DNA samples, however, there is no evidence that they contained the blood of both Amanda and Meredith. Here is how Carlo Torre, a forensic consultant to Amanda's defense team, explained the situation for Panorama magazine in October 2008:

Your report also takes apart the genetic investigation. In the bathroom, a drop of Amanda’s blood was found on the tap. Also, her DNA was found mixed with Meredith’s in another three traces of blood; on the basin’s plughole, on that of the bidet and on a packet of cotton wool ear buds.

That the murderer washed in the bathroom seems quite probable. The fact that Meredith’s blood was there is clear; the murderer would have had a quick wash before going out onto the street...and it doesn’t surprise me that, in the same place there’s Amanda’s dna, since she lived there. I use a bidet, then somebody else bleeds; there’ll be two different genetic profiles, but noone can say whose the blood is and whose are the organic residues. These mixed traces don’t mean anything. Dna can last along time in a drain; in the Carretta’s bathroom, it was found 9 years after the triple murder.

For the police however, Amanda could have been hit during a struggle and bled from her nose as a consequence.

They haven’t given us any proof of a punch or an elbow. The truth is that it was a student house; I doubt they cleaned everyday.​

Given the significance the prosecution has attributed to these mixed DNA samples, it is unfortunate that investigators did not bother to perform substrate control tests, as described here:

http://www.videojug.com/expertanswe...rime-scene-2/what-is-substrate-control-in-csi

Instead, Stefanoni used her DNA sample swabs like a cleaning rag, as shown here:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/bidet_sample_66.flv

With such sloppy procedures at the crime scene, one would expect to find mixed DNA in any number of samples. What is much harder to explain, if one believes the mixed DNA and luminol footprints incriminate Amanda, is why none of this evidence was found in the room where the murder took place.

 

[katy_did]

The answer is this: Dalla Vedova's name was supplied by the US Consulate, not by the Mayor of Perugia. The Mayor actually recommended Ghirga.

LondonJohn, I think you're forgetting that Mignini was also in charge of the Narducci case and was the main proponent of the highly implausible 'body switching' theory (later thrown out by Micheli, of course); at this point, he likely wasn't aware that luminol also reacts with turnip juice.