Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bruce Fischer]

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.

Stefanoni wipes large surface areas in a bathroom that was used daily by Amanda. She uses her swabs like a cleaning rag. Stefanoni mixed the DNA right onto the swab.

If you take a swab and wipe off your own sink you will collect a sample of your own DNA.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

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.

Your statement is false. The glass was off to one side of the sill. The glass was not where Guede pulled himself through the window.

There is no evidence that this was a staged break in. Just a lot of talk.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

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.


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.

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.

What are the main points that lead you to believe that the break in was staged? How do the pictures prove a staged break-in? Where were those clothes that were on the floor? The night stand and the table are messy. Was that staged? What exactly looks ransacked in that room?

Keep in mind, the court already accepted the fact that the window was accessible. The only argument remaining is in regard to the staging.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

________________________

Hi Charlie. Barbie says that "no one was ever able to explain" this shard of glass. (Angel Face, page 166.) But if it had come from the broken window in Filomena's room, that would have been easy to prove from a scientific examination......thickness of the glass, refractive index, chemical composition etc. Since Barbie conjectures that it came from a liquor bottle, the piece is probably curved, as suggested by the photo you kindly posted.

In my opinion, it was probably tracked in from the kitchen where the struggle with Meredith began, and where a drinking glass, bottle, or vase was broken....and later cleaned up. (OOOPS! I've said that dirty word.)

///

Were these scientific tests performed on the piece in question?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Or, you know, we could approach this fairly and agree that there is no way to know who or when the glass was tracked into Meredith's room. It could just as easily have been carried in during the initial investigation as the night before. Hell, Amanda/Raffaele could have placed it there for all we know.

On its own, it's not conclusive by any means. It's a single element in a pattern of evidence that shows what happened. One can invent any number of alternative explanations, just as one can invent a two-knife scenario to explain why the knife in Raffaele's kitchen couldn't have made some of the stab wounds, and one can invent a cleanup to explain a lack of physical evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. One can also invent a motive - robbery, resentment over matters of housekeeping, or even a "choice of evil" made while under the influence of cannabis.

But none of these inventions have anything to do with reality. The reality is that Guede smashed his way into the place, raped and killed Meredith, and fled the country.

 

[Malkmus]

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.

Is it a fact that she was at the grocery store that morning? No.

The grocery store owner's witness testimony is also a part of the upcoming appeal, mainly because it's very conflicting. The owner was first asked about Amanda and Raf in the weeks following the murder and told police that they were not at his store the morning after the murder, but that they did shop there on occasion and always together. It wasn't until he was in the media spotlight nearly a year later that he told an interviewer that she was there the morning after the murder and described her wearing a grey coat she never even owned. On TV he also said he only saw her profile, but then during the trial described in detail the color of her eyes.

Now you tell me why we should believe this guy and why he would change his mind like that.

 

[stilicho]

______________________________________________________________
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.

Do you have copies of those previous declarations? I don't. If someone could post a link to them then we could check for ourselves.

Otherwise we still have no evidence that the police knew of Patrick prior to 06 NOV 2007 or, more specifically, of the connections later presented to them by Amanda in her final declaration upon her arrest.

@Bruce Fisher: Amanda was not at the store the morning after the murder. Quintavalle is not a credible witness.

Quintavalle was found to be a credible witness and the reasons have been amply supplied. We also know from Amanda's account of the morning of 02 NOV 2007 that she was not with Raffaele the whole time. She did not know about his activities as evidenced by cell phone records. Verifiable eyewitness accounts combined with electronic records established many of the facts we know to be true.

Why did Amanda lie about being together and asleep with Raffaele that morning? What is she hiding?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

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

And he is not credible because? My understanding is after Amanda left he asked another employee whether she had seen Amanda and what Amanda bought.

 

[stilicho]

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.

How about "none of the above"?

The Case of the Missing Fingerprints has been variously interpreted and neither of them are particularly supportable:

-----------------------------------------------------------

FOA Interpretation:

There were few identifiable fingerprints and therefore the police were sloppy.

"Guilter" Interpretation:

There were few identifiable fingerprints and therefore Amanda cleaned hers up.

-----------------------------------------------------------

There are other likely reasons for the lack of usable fingerprints and they include those I have produced. Fiona presented a link a couple months ago supporting this third option that neither accuses the police nor proves Amanda's complicity.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

On its own, it's not conclusive by any means. It's a single element in a pattern of evidence that shows what happened. One can invent any number of alternative explanations, just as one can invent a two-knife scenario to explain why the knife in Raffaele's kitchen couldn't have made some of the stab wounds, and one can invent a cleanup to explain a lack of physical evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. One can also invent a motive - robbery, resentment over matters of housekeeping, or even a "choice of evil" made while under the influence of cannabis.

But none of these inventions have anything to do with reality. The reality is that Guede smashed his way into the place, raped and killed Meredith, and fled the country.

If only the evidence supported that assertion...too bad the evidence does not support the assertion that Rudy climbed in through Filomena's window, nor that there was a single assailant.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Do you have copies of those previous declarations? I don't. If someone could post a link to them then we could check for ourselves.

Otherwise we still have no evidence that the police knew of Patrick prior to 06 NOV 2007 or, more specifically, of the connections later presented to them by Amanda in her final declaration upon her arrest.

@Bruce Fisher: Amanda was not at the store the morning after the murder. Quintavalle is not a credible witness.

Quintavalle was found to be a credible witness and the reasons have been amply supplied. We also know from Amanda's account of the morning of 02 NOV 2007 that she was not with Raffaele the whole time. She did not know about his activities as evidenced by cell phone records. Verifiable eyewitness accounts combined with electronic records established many of the facts we know to be true.

Why did Amanda lie about being together and asleep with Raffaele that morning? What is she hiding?

Quintavalle is attacked very strongly in the Appeal. They point out that he was asked right away by police if he had seen either AK or RS in his store after the murder and he said no. He claimed at trial that he was not asked if he had seen AK and at the time he considered it as an insignificant factor. He claims she was showing an urgency to buy something in the cleaning section but left without buying anything. They checked his roll of tickets and found no bleach detergent was purchased. Yet the court concluded she did get bleach there. The Appeal argues besides being seen with no bleach, there being no receipts for bleach, there was in fact a lot of bleach detergents at the cottage already. They claim the court inexplicably ignored the testimony of Inspector Orestes Volturno who subsequently questioned Quintavalle after the initial questioning that happened within a day or so of the murder. Volturno's service record shows he questioned Quintavalle on Nov. 19, 2007. The record makes it clear he was shown photos of AK & RS and he said they had been to his store 2 or so times but not on Nov. 2 and they were always together.


Amanda was not lying when she said she slept in. Amanda never went to the store.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

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.


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.

Please post the "photographic evidence" that you are claiming.

The glass is only on one side of the sill. There was plenty of glass free sill for Guede to climb in. The photos clearly show this.

 

[christianahannah]

On its own, it's not conclusive by any means. It's a single element in a pattern of evidence that shows what happened. One can invent any number of alternative explanations, just as one can invent a two-knife scenario to explain why the knife in Raffaele's kitchen couldn't have made some of the stab wounds, and one can invent a cleanup to explain a lack of physical evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. One can also invent a motive - robbery, resentment over matters of housekeeping, or even a "choice of evil" made while under the influence of cannabis.

But none of these inventions have anything to do with reality. The reality is that Guede smashed his way into the place, raped and killed Meredith, and fled the country.

Charlie,

Do you have a list of evidence collected by the forensic police at the flat and the dates the evidence was collected/swabbed? I don't know if such a list is possible.

I have seen video of the bathroom on 2/11/2007 and 3/11/2007 and wondered if it was approx. 24 hours between video of bathroom and video of swabbing of evidence in bathroom. Does anyone have that answer?

Also, back many posts, there was discussion of Amanda's lamp in Meredith's room and where it would plug into. In the video Bruce Fisher links of evidence swabbing, is that a plug on the light switch in the bathroom outside of Meredith's bedroom?

Sorry to quote this post when it has nothing to do with my questions.

 

[RWVBWL]

Do you have copies of those previous declarations? I don't. If someone could post a link to them then we could check for ourselves.

_________________________________________________________________

Greetings Stilicho,
We have something in common!
I would luuuv to see these same declarations too!
But maybe this is something that might be brought up in the Appeals Trial, so with attorney/client confidentiality, I do not know if we could find this out thataway.

I know that Candace Dempsey, author of "Murder in Italy" is sometimes available for comment.
Maybe Barbie Nadaeu, author of "Angel Face" is also available for comment.

From what I have read while perusing the World Wide Web, I know that the crew over at PMF are big fans of her work. Her book is an interesing read!
Speaking of reading, I have read some of your own posts too on PMF. Maybe you can ask Site Administrator "Michael" if he could kindly find out this information directly from Barbie Nadeau? It would be worth a shot, in my opinion, to ask her of her source of this particular sentence, since NO ONE else seems to have a clue about it's origin and this is something the group here on JREF has debated extensively.
If only the police had recorded those interviews of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito by electronic recordings of audio and/or video. Darn it!

Thanks for your help trying to figure this out,
RWVBWL

 

[christianahannah]

Stefanoni wipes large surface areas in a bathroom that was used daily by Amanda. She uses her swabs like a cleaning rag. Stefanoni mixed the DNA right onto the swab.

If you take a swab and wipe off your own sink you will collect a sample of your own DNA.

I am sorry but I am not convinced that Stefanoni is using sloppy collection habits. I would need more information to make that announcement. As to mixture DNA I don't know the science behind it or how easy it is to create such mixtures. It could be a bit more complicated than mixing DNA onto a swab.

 

[LondonJohn]

I wonder when the translated Massei Report will be available? Anyone?

 

[LondonJohn]

Was it ever established whether the exterior shutters were closed on any or all of the other windows in the girls' house that night? If all of them were closed except for Filomena's (even if Filomena's were merely ajar), then this might provide some form of explanation as to why her particular window was selected - if there actually was a break-in (as opposed to a staging).

 

[LondonJohn]

Without wishing to sound too much like a pseudo-scientific propagandist, can I ask whether the police ever did any tests on the white powdery dust marks that appeared (from the photographs) to be present on some of Filomena's clothes near/under the broken window?

 

[LondonJohn]

And he is not credible because? My understanding is after Amanda left he asked another employee whether she had seen Amanda and what Amanda bought.

Quintavalle stated in court that he had been questioned by the police very soon after the murder about whether Sollecito had bought any bleach from his shop. He said he "couldn't recall" whether the police had also asked about Knox, nor whether the police had shown him photos of either Sollecito or Knox.

He then said in testimony that he saw Knox's photo in the media following her arrest on the 6th November, and said that he "immediately" recognised her as having bought bleach from his shop in the early morning of the 2nd.

He then said in testimony that he chose not to go back to the police with this potentially important identification (even though he'd already been questioned by the police about this very matter) because he "didn't want to get involved in the case". He then said in testimony that a "journalist friend" of his finally persuaded him to contact the police - in August 2008, some nine months after the incident.

In his testimony, Quintavalle was helpfully able to recall exactly what Amanda Knox was wearing that morning, and that she had left his shop and walked down the street towards the murder house. And all this detail was in spite of the fact that he claimed only to have realised the significance of this one particular customer at least four days after she had visited his shop, and he that had actually given a witness statement over nine months afterwards. I wonder what made her appearance and her direction on departure linger so long in his memory? Could he, for example, recall the clothing and direction of travel of any other unfamiliar patrons of his shop four days on?

I'd say that all of this adds up to one unreliable witness. And if his identification testimony was accepted as essentially reliable, it appears to me to be either a dreadful failing on behalf of the defence, or a "curious" assessment on behalf of the judicial panel. Perhaps we shall find out which - if either - of these options is correct during the appeal.....

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Please post the "photographic evidence" that you are claiming.

The glass is only on one side of the sill. There was plenty of glass free sill for Guede to climb in. The photos clearly show this.

Except that the glass is on the part of the sill Guede must have used to pull himself up. Details and all that jazz...