Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bruce Fischer]

So Rudy pulled himself up and into the room through the window sill without using his feet nor disturbing the glass on the window sill...

Again, Amanda's proponents ignore that which does not fit into their preferred scenario.

No one pulled themselves through that window the night of the murder. No one.

If you look at the photos of the window you will see that a majority of the sill does not have glass on it. We are not talking about a lot of glass. A portion of one window was broken. The glass was laying flat on the sill. Shards of glass weren't sticking straight up in the air waiting to shred the first person that attempted to enter the window. The glass on the sill has been heavily exaggerated.

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

 

[RoseMontague]

If you look at the photos of the window you will see that a majority of the sill does not have glass on it. We are not talking about a lot of glass. A portion of one window was broken. The glass was laying flat on the sill. Shards of glass weren't sticking straight up in the air waiting to shred the first person that attempted to enter the window. The glass on the sill has been heavily exaggerated.

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

Bruce,
I have looked at those pictures many times. I just don't agree with you on this one. It may be that Rudy staged the break-in and Amanda was not involved in it. I have not seen a good theory on this, but that does not mean somebody will not solve the mystery. The pictures back the staged break-in version in my opinion. I do think you make some good headway with the already messy argument. If Amanda and Raffaele are innocent it would make sense that even they do not know the answer to this one.

 

[Amazer]

Filomena could not remember if she closed her shutters. The rock could have easily been thrown from the outside. The photographic evidence of the rock shows that this was a very possible scenario.

No, the photographic evidence of the rock shows that it's an impossible scenario. It was discussed in the previous thread as you well know.

Anyone who has visited the cottage will tell you that the climb would have been an easy one for Rudy. We have two members of our group that have seen the window in person and both have stated that the window would have been easy to enter.

So easy that it can be done without disturbing the glass on the sill? Perhaps it's time to make another one of your videos. Show us how it could be done.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

Filomena could not remember if she closed her shutters.

'le persiane le avevo tirate - però penso di non averle chiuso.'

I have the shelters close-drawn, but I don't think I had them locked.

I know what she means, because the wood of the shelters is old and and bit twisted, and when you close-drawn such shelters, they are fixed. Sometimes quite difficult to latch them - so you would do this only when leaving the house for longer time.

 

[stilicho]

Other posters have stated that the police were suspicious of Amanda from Day One, and these posters have asked questions such as (to paraphrase), "Do you really think the police would interview Amanda about the crime scene without also asking her where she was and what she was doing the night before the crime?" They have insisted that the police would have been thorough in obtaining details from the housemates about the night the crime took place.

In that sense, what RWVBWL reports about the Barbie Nadeau passage makes sense. "[Raffaele] also couldn't remember Amanda being around, although she had told police, days earlier, that when Patrick Lumumba sent her a text message telling her not to come to work, she went straight over to Raffaele's and spent the entire evening there."

If you want to claim the police questioned Amanda thoroughly about what she did the night of the murder, then you should concede that she probably did tell them about the messages between herself and Patrick -- how she had planned to go to work but Patrick told her not to come in. I don't see how you are left with any argument that the police did not know who Patrick was.

I might even be willing to concede it myself, although until now I have thought the police had suspected Patrick on their own initiative, and while looking at his phone records found the connections between his number and Amanda's.

But there are no records I've seen to support the hypothesis that they knew of Patrick, that they connected his ID to the SMS on Amanda's phone, and that they also knew that Meredith had worked for him. We know absolutely that he was not interviewed prior to his arrest. We know absolutely that Amanda said, in her own testimony, that she had not mentioned him in three prior statements (declarations).

So where is the source that puts Patrick (Diya), the SMS, Meredith, Amanda, and the crimescene all together before 06 NOV 2007? Didn't any of the defence lawyers except Ghirga ask a solitary question about this?

 

[stilicho]

I think they're leaked extracts from his police statement (article here). I fully agree that it's difficult to make any judgment about it without knowing the full context, though (i.e. transcript/recording of the interrogation). I had a look for his account of what happened on Halloween, and Amanda did leave him at about 9 to go to Le Chic, before meeting up with him later on - the police statement sounds a bit like a mixture of the two nights.

So we have to agree that article is unverifiable. It contains some of the elements discussed in Amanda's testimony but we'd have to verify it from what the arresting officers told the court during their trial. Are there any translations of that?

Thanks, Charlie. Yeah, I think a case could probably be made for pretty much any break-in being 'faked', especially where there are no photos to support or contradict the police officer's testimony.

Yes. Most break-ins are investigated as if they were staged. Insurance companies demand that approach to mitigate against fraud. So what's your point?

Filomena could not remember if she closed her shutters. The rock could have easily been thrown from the outside. The photographic evidence of the rock shows that this was a very possible scenario.

Anyone who has visited the cottage will tell you that the climb would have been an easy one for Rudy. We have two members of our group that have seen the window in person and both have stated that the window would have been easy to enter.

Here are the photographs showing the rock after it was thrown through the window.

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

What did Filomena declare about her shutters into her statements to the police and during her court testimony? My sources say that she stated the shutters were closed. What are your sources that say she cannot remember?

Nobody has ever climbed through that window in any of the attempts made by the defence team. Nobody has even climbed up to the grating without leaving considerable traces of their presence.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, it seems to have become strangely fashionable in certain quarters to demonstrate some sort of "higher knowledge" of this case by insisting on referring to Lumumba'a first name as "Diya". While it's apparently the case that "Diya" is Lumumba's birth name, he now calls himself "Patrick" as a matter of course - as is his right. His partner (the mother of his son) also calls him "Patrick", as do all his friends and acquaintances. So he's "Patrick", not "Diya". Or should we - for example - call Tiger Woods "Eldrick" by the same rationale?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

If you look at the photos of the window you will see that a majority of the sill does not have glass on it. We are not talking about a lot of glass. A portion of one window was broken. The glass was laying flat on the sill. Shards of glass weren't sticking straight up in the air waiting to shred the first person that attempted to enter the window. The glass on the sill has been heavily exaggerated.

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

The problem, Bruce, is that the glass shards are on the window sill where Rudy supposedly pulled himself over. There is every reason to believe this was a staged break-in.

 

[christianahannah]

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/contamination2.html

Watching this video clip of how the DNA+blood evidence was collected in this link that Bruce Fisher posted earlier today, I can't help but think CONTAMINATION with regards to both the collection and/or then subsequent testing of this evidence, though others, especially a few of the "guilter's", may disagree.

I also believe that this collection and then testing was done by this same person,
whom 'Supernaut' wrote of "that the luminol-revealed hallway footprints were said to have NOT been tested for blood, but that it was later discovered (c. June 2009?) that they HAD (by Stefanoni), and the result had been conclusively negative?"

Interesting...
RWVBWL

I watched the video and read the post explaining the video. I'm not sure I could claim contamination. There are jumps in the time of the video between Stefanoni swabbing the different items of evidence. I'm not sure the reason for the jumps in time but it could be that Stefanoni was changing gloves and that action was not recorded. I also can't be positive that the gloves are at the same placement on Stefanoni each time evidence is swabbed and even if similar placement, that may come about as habit by putting on gloves so many times in one's career.

Is there a full rendering of the video? Did Stefanoni testify to changing gloves between swabbings? Is there written documentation/checklist where an investigator (Stefanoni) has to sign that they followed such and such protocol? Because I have these questions I can't claim contamination or no contamination.

 

[Malkmus]

I can scrounge up the cite but Laura's guitar, a hairdryer, and several other items were retrieved from the upper floor of the cottage after the arrests were made.

All the prints found were not usable. This does not mean that none of them were Amanda's. There are certain surfaces that retain prints very well (including glass and finished metal) while others don't.

Stilicho, would you mind telling me what your point is? You keep responding to my claim that Amanda didn't clean her fingerprints in the cottage with more evidence supporting it. I already believe Amanda's fingerprints were indeed to be found all over the cottage, so why would I be interested in you citing more evidence that supports that? Maybe you should be directing your points toward Telly, since he's the one who thinks Amanda wiped all her fingerprints from her bedroom.

 

[christianahannah]

Filomena could not remember if she closed her shutters. The rock could have easily been thrown from the outside. The photographic evidence of the rock shows that this was a very possible scenario.

Anyone who has visited the cottage will tell you that the climb would have been an easy one for Rudy. We have two members of our group that have seen the window in person and both have stated that the window would have been easy to enter.

Here are the photographs showing the rock after it was thrown through the window.

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

Could Filomena not remember if she closed her shutters of if she locked her shutters? Do you have her transcript/testimony concerning her statements about the shutters?

 

[christianahannah]

I would like to indicate, that everything concerning the staged-break-in is described in great details in the Massei-report, page 35-41.
The following is a very small excerpt. Please excuse my bumpy translation.

Romanelli Filomena testified 07.02.2009 that she has closed the shelters (but not latched them) And that they are tight - not very easy to move.
So before smashing the window-glass with the stone it was neccessary to climb and open the shelters , pulling them outwards (with some effort)
Then, with a second climbing – we shall not forget, that this window is in height about 3 and ½ meters from the ground – one would have been able to smash this window with the stone. (how one would have been able to climb the wall carrying that big stone has to be explained separately!)
Brocci Gioia testified 23.04.2009 that neither the wall nor the ground below that window had shown any signs of footprints or tracks. There were no signs at all on the soil, on the vegetation. The ground was dump, it was raining on 30.10.2009 (testified 23.04.2009).

At some fotos of the crime scene from 02.11.2009 it is recorded that the shelters from Filomenas room are still not wide open.

There is one photo of the shutters (photo 11) mentioned in the link Rose provides. There are other photos documenting the scene in Filomena's room but they were taken after she had been in the room and moved some of her items.

Your translation complements well with the Massei motivations from Rose's link.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

The information that we have does not come from blogs. We have the court testimony. We know what evidence was presented in court. There is no bleach receipt. No bleach was purchased by Amanda.

Even accepting your version, your conclusion is not logical.

I don't see anything that addresses the issue of why Amanda claimed that she slept until around 10:00 when she was in a grocery store before 8:00.

 

[RWVBWL]

This is from Amanda's testimony:

Ghirga?: In your preceding declarations, on Nov 2 at 15:30, on Nov 3 at 14:45, then, there was another one, Nov 4, 14:45, and then there's Nov 6, 1:45. Only in these declarations, and then in the following spontaneous declarations, did you mention the name of Patrick. Why hadn't you ever mentioned him before?

Knox: Because that was the one where they suggested Patrick's name to me.

The translation is a little peculiar but it looks like her lawyer is asking her to explain why she'd never mentioned Patrick to the police prior to 06 NOV 2007. "These declarations" should probably read "this declaration" in the second sentence to make Ghirga's last question make any sense. On three previous occasions Patrick's name never came up. This would seem to make the quote from Nadeau's book incorrect.

_________________________________________________________________

Greetings Stilicho,
When I read of what you wrote regarding Amanda Knox's testimony that you posted, I see that we, once again, come to different conclusions.

When Mr. Ghirga, says that Only in these declarations,
I believe that he means the ones on Nov 2 at 15:30, on Nov 3 at 14:45, another one, Nov 4, 14:45, and then Nov 6, 1:45, and then in the following spontaneous declarations, did you mention the name of Patrick.

That tells me that Amanda Knox has been mentioning her boss Diya Patrick Lumumba to the police on those particular days of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, + 6th.

That would make sense, since he did give Miss Knox the night off from work that night Miss Kercher was murdered. And she did text him back.
Personally, I tend to believe Miss Knox when she says that she tried to help the police in their investigation into who murdered her friend and housemate. She did not even get a lawyer, which tells me she was not worried about answering any particular police questions.
And so I would find it very hard to believe that Miss Knox did not state this to the police at some time before the night of her last questioning on the 5th/6th, before her arrest. Esh, I bet that she told them of this the first day she was asked questions...

Mr. Ghirga asks Miss Knox "Why hadn't you ever mentioned him before?"
Miss Knox: "Because that was the one where they suggested Patrick's name to me."

I believe that Miss Knox is answering why she had never mentioned to the police that Diya Patrick Lumumba was the person who might have raped and killed Miss Kercher.
Her simple reply seems to indicate that it was on the night of the 5th/6th during her questioning that the police apparently 1st suggested Patrick's name to her as being involved in Miss Kercher's brutal murder.

It's kind of interesting how both of us, (you being from Canada and myself being from the U.S.A.), who probably speak English as our primary language, come to different conclusions about this testimony.

And with that in mind, it makes me wonder how hard it must have been for the 8 police officers who surrounded Amanda Knox in that famous photo that Fulcanelli recently posted here on JREF to have even understood her that day or during any other subsequent questioning, if an interpreter wasn't always there and the police did not record the interviews...
Have a good one,
RWVBWL

 

[BobTheDonkey]

_________________________________________________________________

Greetings Stilicho,
When I read of what you wrote regarding Amanda Knox's testimony that you posted, I see that we, once again, come to different conclusions.

When Mr. Ghirga, says that Only in these declarations,
I believe that he means the ones on Nov 2 at 15:30, on Nov 3 at 14:45, another one, Nov 4, 14:45, and then Nov 6, 1:45, and then in the following spontaneous declarations, did you mention the name of Patrick.

That tells me that Amanda Knox has been mentioning her boss Diya Patrick Lumumba to the police on those particular days of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, + 6th.

That would make sense, since he did give Miss Knox the night off from work that night Miss Kercher was murdered. And she did text him back.
Personally, I tend to believe Miss Knox when she says that she tried to help the police in their investigation into who murdered her friend and housemate. She did not even get a lawyer, which tells me she was not worried about answering any particular police questions.
And so I would find it very hard to believe that Miss Knox did not state this to the police at some time before the night of her last questioning on the 5th/6th, before her arrest. Esh, I bet that she told them of this the first day she was asked questions...

Mr. Ghirga asks Miss Knox "Why hadn't you ever mentioned him before?"
Miss Knox: "Because that was the one where they suggested Patrick's name to me."

I believe that Miss Knox is answering why she had never mentioned to the police that Diya Patrick Lumumba was the person who might have raped and killed Miss Kercher.
Her simple reply seems to indicate that it was on the night of the 5th/6th during her questioning that the police apparently 1st suggested Patrick's name to her as being involved in Miss Kercher's brutal murder.

It's kind of interesting how both of us, (you being from Canada and myself being from the U.S.A.), who probably speak English as our primary language, come to different conclusions about this testimony.

And with that in mind, it makes me wonder how hard it must have been for the 8 police officers who surrounded Amanda Knox in that famous photo that Fulcanelli recently posted here on JREF to have even understood her that day or during any other subsequent questioning, if an interpreter wasn't always there and the police did not record the interviews...
Have a good one,
RWVBWL

I think Google translation has had you here. It would appear that Ghirga was actually asking something more like:

"You were interrogated these other times, why did you not mention Patrick till the interrogation on the night of the 5th and then the spontaneous declarations following?"

 

[RWVBWL]

I watched the video and read the post explaining the video. I'm not sure I could claim contamination. There are jumps in the time of the video between Stefanoni swabbing the different items of evidence. I'm not sure the reason for the jumps in time but it could be that Stefanoni was changing gloves and that action was not recorded. I also can't be positive that the gloves are at the same placement on Stefanoni each time evidence is swabbed and even if similar placement, that may come about as habit by putting on gloves so many times in one's career.

Is there a full rendering of the video? Did Stefanoni testify to changing gloves between swabbings? Is there written documentation/checklist where an investigator (Stefanoni) has to sign that they followed such and such protocol? Because I have these questions I can't claim contamination or no contamination.

Hi ChristianaHannah,
When I looked at the video that Bruce posted, I noticed that a number of times P. Stefanoni touched one area and then another area with the swab or cloth that she used to collect her samples. Now I am just a regular guy who didn't excel in science while at high school, but even I could see that this could definately be a cause for contamination, even if she had changed her gloves after every sample collection.
Here are just 2 random examples:

1) 0:56 into video clip
At 16:36:02 She touches left light switch and wipes the area
At 16:36:09 She touches right light switch and wipes area with the same cloth she wiped the first 1 light switch with
At 16:36:13 She goes back to left light switch and re-wipes it again with the same original cloth.

So just by my own observation, the left and right light switches are now possibly contaminated. If Amanda Knox's DNA was only on 1 switch, and Meredith Kercher's blood on another, they are now mixed...

Another random clip is at 1:36 in the video
At 16:45:54 She starts to wipe the inside of the sink
At 16:46:02 She wipes the top of the sink, using the same cloth.
If Meredith Kercher's blood was in the sink, which it most likely was, and Amanda Knox's DNA was on the top left of the sink, they are now mixed...

And it does seem to appear that P. Stefanoni does not change her gloves...
Interesting, hmmm?
RWVBWL

PS-Thanks too for the link yesterday, I too, as Katy did, found it an interesting read, especially the mention of the North Africans.
RWVBWL

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

_________________________________________________________________

Greetings Stilicho,
When I read of what you wrote regarding Amanda Knox's testimony that you posted, I see that we, once again, come to different conclusions.

When Mr. Ghirga, says that Only in these declarations,
I believe that he means the ones on Nov 2 at 15:30, on Nov 3 at 14:45, another one, Nov 4, 14:45, and then Nov 6, 1:45, and then in the following spontaneous declarations, did you mention the name of Patrick.

That tells me that Amanda Knox has been mentioning her boss Diya Patrick Lumumba to the police on those particular days of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, + 6th.

RWVBWL

I am sorry, but I think, you work from the wrong direction - you start with the result and work backwards.
But we have to begin with the murder, all investigations start with zero - with the victim (Meredith Kercher) - her friends, her collegues, her fellow students, her surrounding. How did she spend her last hours ...
And amongst all this people - quite in the front row - the housemates, and here we have Ms. Knox. About the last thing what comes in my mind, is that the police would ask Ms. Knox about her boss.
**
When you cite Mr. Ghirga, you should consider that his goal is of course to do the best for Ms. Knox - in this case to diminish the damage of this accusation.

 

[Fiona]

The police did not suggest Patrick's name. This is clearly established in the court testimony.

 

[RWVBWL]

I think Google translation has had you here. It would appear that Ghirga was actually asking something more like:

"You were interrogated these other times, why did you not mention Patrick till the interrogation on the night of the 5th and then the spontaneous declarations following?"

Hi Bobthe Donkey,
That's true, it could be...
I do recall that a Google translation error went something like "A lot of blood"
to a better translation of "drops of blood" regarding Raffaele Sollecito's phone call to the Carabinieri.

I don't even know if Stilicho translated this the testimony he wrote of, or if he found this information already translated.

BUT I do note that it does agree with what Barbie Nadeau states in her "Angel Face" book, where on page 66 she states, that Amanda Knox "had told police, days earlier, that when Patrick Lumumba sent her a text message, etc...

It would make sense, (since Amanda Knox did not immediately lawyer-up and was only trying to help the police catch a murderer who killed her friend and housemate), that she would have told the police of this early on, since her plans changed and she did not have to work that night as scheduled, which was just a simple fact...
RWVBWL

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Even accepting your version, your conclusion is not logical.

I don't see anything that addresses the issue of why Amanda claimed that she slept until around 10:00 when she was in a grocery store before 8:00.

Amanda was not at the store the morning after the murder. Quintavalle is not a credible witness.