Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mr.D]

Here is what is clearly established in the court testimony:

They continued to say that I hadetomebody,

???

Did Knox testify in English or Italian?

Mary_H, was this a google translation of an Italian transcript? Assuming she testified in English, we English speakers would probably get Knox's intended meaning best in the original English if possible.

 

[Mr.D]

Where is the DNA from the person(s) who restrained Meredith in the multiple attacker scenario?

Where was Guede's DNA found?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

DNA cannot be interrogated to tell us when it was deposited on the bra clasp. Both secondary transfer and contamination (at the point of collection or in the lab) are possibilities. You have been told this many times.

Where is the DNA from the person(s) who restrained Meredith in the multiple attacker scenario?

You have yet to provide a means of transfer for that contamination. Simply claiming that it could have happened, and therefore did, negates all DNA evidence ever used, in any case, and is therefore too general an objection to be considered credible.

Does DNA transfer every time a person is held? How many traces of DNA did Rudy leave on the body? Were they in the places he would have had to have been holding Meredith to restrain her in such a manner that she was unable to fight against him?

 

[Fine]

Here is what is clearly established in the court testimony:

* * * *
AK: They were suggesting paths of thought. They were suggesting the path of thought. They suggested the journey. So the first thing I said, "Okay, Patrick".
* * * *


What is the point of insisting Amanda said Patrick's name first?

_________________--

Hi Mary.

I refer you to Amanda herself. A statement made a year before her rehearsed court testimony. In the handwritten statement she composed the morning of her "Confession" and arrest, November 6, 2007, she wrote:

___________________________________________________________
"The questions that need answering, at least for how I'm thinking are:

1. Why did Raffaele lie? (or for you) Did Raffaele lie?
2. Why did I think of Patrik?3. Is the evidence proving my pressance [sic] at the time and place of the crime reliable? If so, what does this say about my memory? Is it reliable?
4. Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?
3. Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance."
__________________________________________________________


Are we supposed to believe that a year later she could remember that the cops were suggesting a "path of thought" leading to her accusation of Patrick, but just a few hours after the accusation she had already forgotten it????? Well, maybe. But bear in mind that in her court testimony she was providing an excuse for defaming Patrick. Not so in her morning-after statement to the cops.

So, why did she accuse Patrick, instead of someone else? Tough to say, and Amanda herself didn't know the answer...or at least, pretended not to know a few hours after the accusation. The simplest explanation is that she had been in communication with Patrick that evening, November 1, and so her accusation against him would be "confirmed" by that fact. The fact that Patrick and Rudy are both of African ancestry may also have influenced Amanda's choice.

The much larger question is why she would accuse anyone. (No, I don't accept the coercion theory.) My own "pet theory" is that sometime on the 5th of November she and Raffaele had decided to change their alibi. And that new version would include Amanda leaving Raffaele's flat the night of the murder. This is exactly what Raffaele then told the cops on November 5th and exactly what Amanda on November 5th told the cops too. A coincidence??? (Remember that the new version, according to Raffaele in his diary, was invented by Amanda.) This wasn't Raffaele "throwing Amanda under the bus." The lovebirds were acting in concert. So I guess they weren't happy with their earlier alibi, since the cops seemed skeptical. And maybe they feared that evidence would directly tie Amanda, maybe both lovebirds, to the murder scene (which of course happened). So I suppose this was a wise choice---given the later discovered evidence---but there was no plausible murderer named in the revised version.

In retrospect, caught between a rock and a hard place, maybe she should have just named Rudy? Difficult to say, however, just what Rudy would have revealed had she done that. She must have feared that he would have confessed and provided ample evidence to convict both of the lovebirds. So naming Rudy wasn't an option either.

As we know the revised alibi led to disaster. Both the lovebirds were arrested the first night they used it, and Raffaele retracted it that same night, calling it "rubbish" and blaming Amanda for bringing him to lie.

And so---finally--- the lovebirds went back to their original version, both at Raffaele's flat, snuggled in bed while visions of sugar plums danced in their heads, and contesting all the evidence that showed otherwise. And THAT didn't work either. Quite simply, there was no solution.

///

 

[Amazer]

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.

Fulcanelli claims that there were no bleach detergents at the cottage. You claim there were. Are you sure you aren't mixing up the cottage and Raffaele's appartment?

Or can you show some evidence that bleach detergents were present in the cottage?

 

[capealadin]

Filomena's room is very important. The fact that there was NO dna evidence f Rudi. In as much as there was no dna evidence of Amanda in Meredith's room..... there is evidence of Raffaele..who is her alibi.

 

[Matthew Best]

Here is a sequence of frames captured from police video, showing Stefanoni's procedure for swabbing a sample:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/stefanoni_swabbing.jpg

I'm certainly not an expert, but when I first saw video of Stefanoni at the crime scene I was always rather surprised that (as you can see in these screen grabs) her hair is hanging loose. Is that normal for DNA collection? Shouldn't she be wearing some kind of hairnet or something?

 

[capealadin]

here's the deal. guys. When the appeal fails, which it will, Raff is going to tell what really happened. He's not spending 25 years for 8 days of nookie. He has been led to believe that on appeal, they will will win. Not going to happen. Rudi's testimony will back Raff's. Whether you like it or not, there is too much evidence of lies, fake break in, footsteps, blood, behaviour, to go any other way. " I was only defending myself" is going to cut no slck. Guilty, guilty, guilty.

 

[stilicho]

Quintavalle is attacked very strongly in the Appeal. .... Amanda was not lying when she said she slept in. Amanda never went to the store.

I have heard they are going to try to discredit the witnesses (as they should, of course) but they were unable to do so at the trial. They won't be able to discredit them at the appeals either. There is no reason to disbelieve Quintavalle but plenty of reason to disbelieve Amanda.

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! ....

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

I think Nadeau is mistaken or the quote is taken out of context. No need to go with the electronic recordings trope. Even when we have electronic recordings (eg Raffaele's 112 calls) nobody appears to agree with what is being said. The interviews were obviously recorded or there would have been no point in having them. Whether the recordings are electronic or written is of no consequence to our discussion.

The fact is that the police didn't suggest the name to Amanda and part of the reason is that they had nothing to connect him to the cottage or to Meredith's murder. Nadeau provides no source for apparently stating the contrary.

I'd say that all of this adds up to one unreliable witness [Quintavalle].

Don't forget that part of what makes his testimony more credible is not only the corroboration of his clerk but the way that Amanda's separation from Raffaele during the morning of 02 NOV 2007 was confirmed by phone and computer records. There were details of that morning--at Raffaele's--that Amanda didn't know. The reason she didn't know is that she wasn't with Raffaele.

I'm a bit bemused that anyone can look at the video of Stefanoni and not acknowledge that there's at least a possibility of contamination/transfer (or whatever the appropriate term is here) within the bathroom. .... The fact a person's DNA in the bathroom they use every day can be used to convict them in a murder trial is frightening.

If that was the only piece of evidence used to convict her then it would be disturbing. Yet the blood and DNA evidence are just parts of the mountain of evidence against her.

I have examined several hours of video, and no one ever changes gloves.

On appeal are the lawyers seriously going to argue that the forensics teams didn't change gloves? I hope not because that won't work.

 

[Bob001]

As I've previously stated from my perspective, Knox's background (and that of Sollecito) has nothing to do with my belief that the convictions may not be safe. ...

Character certainly doesn't prove anything, but I'm not sure that questions of character aren't useful lines of inquiry. That doesn't mean that a "good" person never does bad things. But in general, people tend to keep doing what they have done in the past either because it's succeeded at getting them what they want or because they don't know how to do something different. Most serious criminals start with smaller offenses as juveniles, and violent criminals are likely to have grown up in homes that were abusive or neglectful. Violent crime is much more common among the poor than other groups for all kinds of socioeconomic reasons, the most obvious being that people who already have money don't need to steal it. Even in "good" families, trouble usually starts early. In the U.S. recently, a star athlete from a wealthy family attending a prestigious university beat his girlfriend to death in her dorm room, then left her body for her roommates to discover. The first reaction from observers was a predictable "How could this happen?" But the investigation revealed that this guy had a long, documentable history of impulsive violent behavior, including assaulting a police officer and attacking a sleeping teammate with a stick, and his family, teachers and coaches had protected him and made excuses for him for many years. The murder really didn't come out of the blue.

But Knox and Sollecito apparently have no histories of violence or even of any criminal behavior except smoking marijuana. There is nothing in their backgrounds that hints that they could impulsively commit a brutal murder with a knife. And even if you believe that one of them could somehow have suddenly gone off the deep end, is it really plausible that both would flip out at the same moment and afterward neither would feel enough remorse, shame or fear of the consequences to turn the other one in? And what would they have in common with Rudy Guede? Do they have a history of hanging out with lowlifes, or even just this particular lowlife? It seems to be undisputed that Knox and Sollecito spent the evening before the murder smoking dope. When has marijuana ever impelled somebody to commit a violent crime? Believing the prosecution's theory requires believing that three people who barely knew each other decided to engage in some bizarre sexual activity that led to a thrill-killing. I ask again, how often does that happen?

Good family backgrounds combined with no criminal histories and no motive equals a very low likelihood that Knox and Sollecito could have participated in this crime. It's certainly not impossible, but it would be so rare and so weird that an alternate explanation is more plausible. And without compelling evidence to the contrary, the obvious alternate explanation is that Guede acted alone.

 

[stilicho]

But Knox and Sollecito apparently have no histories of violence or even of any criminal behavior except smoking marijuana. There is nothing in their backgrounds that hints that they could impulsively commit a brutal murder with a knife. And even if you believe that one of them could somehow have suddenly gone off the deep end, is it really plausible that both would flip out at the same moment and afterward neither would feel enough remorse, shame or fear of the consequences to turn the other one in? And what would they have in common with Rudy Guede? Do they have a history of hanging out with lowlifes, or even just this particular lowlife?

....

Good family backgrounds combined with no criminal histories and no motive equals a very low likelihood that Knox and Sollecito could have participated in this crime. It's certainly not impossible, but it would be so rare and so weird that an alternate explanation is more plausible. And without compelling evidence to the contrary, the obvious alternate explanation is that Guede acted alone.

Fortunately for us, the investigators are unencumbered by our prejudices. They look at the evidence rather than at a set of preconceived ideas about low-lifes or probabilities of flipping out. The evidence pointed to three unlikely murderers and the court agreed unanimously.

There are many reasons the investigators and the courts ruled out the lone wolf scenario. It's hard to summarise all of them here but you might want to read the previous thread and Dan O's "lone wolf" thread. In the latter, we were prohibited from including any of the evidence pointing to Amanda and Raffaele. We essentially had to pretend they didn't exist and that the plentiful evidence of their participation was intentionally or accidentally manipulated.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

simulated strangulation

BobTheDonkey,

Let’s see if I can deconvolute your last message. I have previously documented that a mechanism for DNA contamination cannot always be found, even in cases it is known to have occurred. However, here is additional information from Dr. Theodore Kessis, “It must be noted however that contamination errors have been documented where no direct processing link between sample and contaminant have been established, raising the specter that a source of contamination can linger in a laboratory for some time.”

http://www.garyisinnocent.org/web/CaseHistory/NewDNAFindings/tabid/58/Default.aspx

You ignore secondary transfer in order to concentrate on contamination. Yet secondary transfer is not the same thing as contamination. There are plenty of ways that Raffaele’s DNA might have ended up on the clasp via secondary or tertiary transfer. Here is one hypothetical scenario based on one that katy_did suggested: Raffaele used a bathroom towel; Rudy took it into Meredith’s bedroom; it happened to lie on top of the clasp, and Rudy stepped on the towel, bending the clasp in the process.

You have on multiple occasions claimed that my arguments against the knife DNA evidence in the case negate all DNA evidence, but your interpretation of what I said is very different from my actual meaning. Contamination happened in the Jane Mixer, Farah Jama, Jaidyn Leskie, and Gregory Turner cases, but that does not mean that all DNA evidence is invalid. The reason I believe it happened with respect to the knife is not that it can happen, but that there is no reasonable explanation for the DNA to be on the kitchen knife other than contamination. I don’t believe in magic cleaning fluids that can remove blood cells but not other cells.

On the issue of the DNA transfer from the assailant to the victim, here is a quote: “This study suggests that not only can the offender’s DNA be transferred onto the victim but the victim’s DNA onto the point of contact with the offender. DNA survival on both parties may be for several hours to days. Thus in the case of the living victim seeking assistance from the police or the discovery of a deceased body or the apprehension of a suspected assailant, DNA retrieval from the point(s) of contact on the skin should be considered.” The author is G. N. Rutty, and the citation is Int J Legal Med (2002) 116 :170–173. I provided the abstract to this article in a previous message.

 

[LondonJohn]

here's the deal. guys. When the appeal fails, which it will, Raff is going to tell what really happened. He's not spending 25 years for 8 days of nookie. He has been led to believe that on appeal, they will will win. Not going to happen. Rudi's testimony will back Raff's. Whether you like it or not, there is too much evidence of lies, fake break in, footsteps, blood, behaviour, to go any other way. " I was only defending myself" is going to cut no slck. Guilty, guilty, guilty.

Gosh - I didn't know that it had already been decided that Knox and Sollecito were going to lose their appeal. I must have missed that meeting.

And I'm also bemused as to why Sollecito wouldn't have already turned on Knox, if it were true that she was involved in the crime and he wasn't (except for covering for her and doing the "clean up"). Why would he have allowed himself to be so closely intertwined (in terms of the trial) with someone he'd only known for two weeks prior to the crime? I can perhaps understand a husband trying to protect a wife, but not this. He might be regarded as stupid and/or besotted - to a degree - but that's pushing things to unrealistic levels of devotion.

By the way, just in case anyone was wondering, I'm not going to New York today. But even if I were, I would wonder why I was sharing this information on an internet forum. I'm sure that a psychiatrist would have a good idea as to why I might be wanting to divulge this information though...

 

[LondonJohn]

When is the translated Massei report going to be published? I'm getting very restless now - it's impossible to understand anything about this case without it. I seem to recall a post from someone called "Michael" on another forum from mid-April in which he said that it was going to be ready within a week. I wonder what's happened in the meantime?

 

[LondonJohn]

Character certainly doesn't prove anything, but I'm not sure that questions of character aren't useful lines of inquiry. That doesn't mean that a "good" person never does bad things. But in general, people tend to keep doing what they have done in the past either because it's succeeded at getting them what they want or because they don't know how to do something different. Most serious criminals start with smaller offenses as juveniles, and violent criminals are likely to have grown up in homes that were abusive or neglectful. Violent crime is much more common among the poor than other groups for all kinds of socioeconomic reasons, the most obvious being that people who already have money don't need to steal it. Even in "good" families, trouble usually starts early. In the U.S. recently, a star athlete from a wealthy family attending a prestigious university beat his girlfriend to death in her dorm room, then left her body for her roommates to discover. The first reaction from observers was a predictable "How could this happen?" But the investigation revealed that this guy had a long, documentable history of impulsive violent behavior, including assaulting a police officer and attacking a sleeping teammate with a stick, and his family, teachers and coaches had protected him and made excuses for him for many years. The murder really didn't come out of the blue.

But Knox and Sollecito apparently have no histories of violence or even of any criminal behavior except smoking marijuana. There is nothing in their backgrounds that hints that they could impulsively commit a brutal murder with a knife. And even if you believe that one of them could somehow have suddenly gone off the deep end, is it really plausible that both would flip out at the same moment and afterward neither would feel enough remorse, shame or fear of the consequences to turn the other one in? And what would they have in common with Rudy Guede? Do they have a history of hanging out with lowlifes, or even just this particular lowlife? It seems to be undisputed that Knox and Sollecito spent the evening before the murder smoking dope. When has marijuana ever impelled somebody to commit a violent crime? Believing the prosecution's theory requires believing that three people who barely knew each other decided to engage in some bizarre sexual activity that led to a thrill-killing. I ask again, how often does that happen?

Good family backgrounds combined with no criminal histories and no motive equals a very low likelihood that Knox and Sollecito could have participated in this crime. It's certainly not impossible, but it would be so rare and so weird that an alternate explanation is more plausible. And without compelling evidence to the contrary, the obvious alternate explanation is that Guede acted alone.

I don't disagree with any of this, and in fact I personally think it's very good analysis. However, it merely gives colour to the situation, rather than providing any actual usable evidence either way. Character assessments sch as these are typically only useful at the sentencing stage. Justice demands that a person's character and/or previous convictions should generally not be used for or against him/her in a trial. And, unfortunately, saying that Knox/Sollecito's backgrounds would make their participation in this particular crime "extremely rare" (which I would agree with, by the way) carries no legal weight whatsoever regarding whether they did it or not. That was the point I was trying to make.

In a similar but opposite way, one sometimes hears of cases where - say - a man is convicted of raping and killing a schoolgirl. After the conviction is announced, the judge reveals that the same man had in fact spent 5 years in prison for exposing himself to a young girl, then a further 10 years for the rape and imprisonment of another girl, and that the man was only released from this last 10-year sentence three weeks before the rape/murder. But good jurisprudence demands that the jury did not hear of the man's "previous" while they determined his guilt/non-guilt of the rape/murder charge. This charge must only be assessed on the evidence that is directly related to it.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Fulcanelli claims that there were no bleach detergents at the cottage. You claim there were. Are you sure you aren't mixing up the cottage and Raffaele's appartment?

Or can you show some evidence that bleach detergents were present in the cottage?

Fulcanelli is wrong. Amanda's lawyers state this information in the appeal. I believe Amanda's lawyers.

 

[RoseMontague]

Quitntaville was led to the police by another reporter over a year after the murder and over a year after he was asked initially and shown pictures of both Knox and Sollecito by the investigators just a few days after the murder. Here is what the Massei report says about it (Google translated):

.

..a guy who lived above his shop and he knew that Antioco Fois, had graduated and became a contributor to the newspaper, Umbria, and often went to him and asked "but you know anything? Did you see anything? Did you hear something? " and so it was that one day told him that he saw on the morning of November 2, Amanda Knox and then decided to go to prosecutors because Fois Antioco convinced him that the fact could be important. Consequently, the failure to inspector Volturno said he saw Amanda on the morning of November 2 and the fact that only after having spoken so convinced by Fois Antioco the ground that the situation could have, can not take the witness is not reliable affected the authenticity of memory.

Now the court here is making a decision to consider this witness more reliable than their own investigator and testimony over a year later more reliable than the statement he gave to the investigator just a few days after the murder. He claims he was not asked about Knox, yet the investigator in the notes makes it clear that he was and he was shown pictures of both of them. This reeks (credit HB), in my opinion.

From RS appeal (Google translated):

The Inspector Volturno questioned on the same occasion,
Instead, said: "A few days later tracked down the store that had a
Conad shop-site immediately all.inizio Margherita Corso Garibaldi, where both the
holder orders recognized in the photographs that we placed in our view,
Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. Raffaele Sollecito was a regular customer
This store, while the girl had been seen two or three times in his
company "(Hearing Transcript 13.03.2009, pp. 177 and 178).

Also, same source:

Ana Marina Chiriboga, who, when asked defense Knox, "E. The police came, spoke
Marco Quintavalle, does not speak with you first. Marco Quintavalle that
What you said in this interview? What they talked about? "He replied
"No, he told us that they told him if he knew Amanda and Raffaele.Given
we had already seen a bit. for TV, so, comment out "(Transcript
hearing on 26.06.2009, p. 54). And yet, the question of defense "And since
c.eravamo arrived here. What did he say? "" That they knew "the Chiriboga
stated "Yes, ah, wanted to know if he knew?Him yes, he said he
knew, but I said I did not know, because my colleague also gave
that ... "(Hearing Transcript 26.06.2009, p. 55) and, to further applications
"Quintavalle said that he knew Amanda and Raffaele, right?", The witness has
answered "Yes" (Hearing Transcript 26.06.2009, p.56).
Therefore not clear how it was possible to affirm that ruling
107
Quintavalle Inspector has not reported to have seen Amanda Knox in the morning
2 November not only because he was asked (pp. 75 and 76 above).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

on and in

Where was Guede's DNA found?

Mr.D,

Most news reports I have read say that his DNA was found on and in Ms. Kercher, without specifying where. I have been interpreting "in" to include the vaginal area and probably elsewhere, but I am not sure about the exact location of the "on" DNA.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Character certainly doesn't prove anything, but I'm not sure that questions of character aren't useful lines of inquiry. That doesn't mean that a "good" person never does bad things. But in general, people tend to keep doing what they have done in the past either because it's succeeded at getting them what they want or because they don't know how to do something different. Most serious criminals start with smaller offenses as juveniles, and violent criminals are likely to have grown up in homes that were abusive or neglectful. Violent crime is much more common among the poor than other groups for all kinds of socioeconomic reasons, the most obvious being that people who already have money don't need to steal it. Even in "good" families, trouble usually starts early. In the U.S. recently, a star athlete from a wealthy family attending a prestigious university beat his girlfriend to death in her dorm room, then left her body for her roommates to discover. The first reaction from observers was a predictable "How could this happen?" But the investigation revealed that this guy had a long, documentable history of impulsive violent behavior, including assaulting a police officer and attacking a sleeping teammate with a stick, and his family, teachers and coaches had protected him and made excuses for him for many years. The murder really didn't come out of the blue.

But Knox and Sollecito apparently have no histories of violence or even of any criminal behavior except smoking marijuana. There is nothing in their backgrounds that hints that they could impulsively commit a brutal murder with a knife. And even if you believe that one of them could somehow have suddenly gone off the deep end, is it really plausible that both would flip out at the same moment and afterward neither would feel enough remorse, shame or fear of the consequences to turn the other one in? And what would they have in common with Rudy Guede? Do they have a history of hanging out with lowlifes, or even just this particular lowlife? It seems to be undisputed that Knox and Sollecito spent the evening before the murder smoking dope. When has marijuana ever impelled somebody to commit a violent crime? Believing the prosecution's theory requires believing that three people who barely knew each other decided to engage in some bizarre sexual activity that led to a thrill-killing. I ask again, how often does that happen?

Good family backgrounds combined with no criminal histories and no motive equals a very low likelihood that Knox and Sollecito could have participated in this crime. It's certainly not impossible, but it would be so rare and so weird that an alternate explanation is more plausible. And without compelling evidence to the contrary, the obvious alternate explanation is that Guede acted alone.

Except that Guede doesn't have a history of violence either. He had the same criminal record as Raffaele and Amanda - none.

You might want to do something about that bias you're showing

 

[Bob001]

Except that Guede doesn't have a history of violence either. He had the same criminal record as Raffaele and Amanda - none.

You might want to do something about that bias you're showing

Fair point. One difference is that Guede's DNA was apparently found on and in the victim, and Guede fled the country as soon as he could catch a train. Nothing would have prevented Knox from catching a plane home before she was arrested, but she tried to cooperate with the police without hiring a lawyer. There also seems to be substantial evidence that Guede was known to the cops as a drug dealer, and he had been arrested at least once for breaking and entering, theft and carrying a knife. His fingerprints on file from that arrest helped the police to identify him. Not having a record of criminal convictions doesn't quite mean than Guede, Knox and Sollecito shared similar histories. And their backgrounds are so different that it's hard to believe Knox, Sollecito and Guede would have trusted one another enough to participate in a deadly crime together, when any one of them could have saved himself by turning on the other two.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...245/Amanda-Knox-trial-Rudy-Guede-profile.html